ED Must Give Written Grounds of Arrest to Every Person Arrested Under PMLA: Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal

Published: 20 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Supreme Court held that the Enforcement Directorate must, from now on, give every person arrested under Section 19 of the PMLA a written copy of the grounds of arrest, as a matter of course and without exception. Reading the grounds aloud is not enough under Article 22(1). Finding the arrests of a father and son made in haste and without bona fides, it set aside the arrests, the remand orders and the High Court's orders (paras 22, 35-36).

ED Must Give Written Grounds of Arrest to Every Person Arrested Under PMLA: Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal

Judgment Intelligence

Petition Allowed

Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India & Ors.

2023 INSC 866

Criminal Appeal Nos. 3051-3052 of 2023 with Criminal Appeal Nos. 3053-3054 of 2023

Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision: 3 October 2023
Bench: Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar
Relevant Acts & Sections: Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 19, 45 and 50; Constitution of India - Article 22(1); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 167

Final Outcome

Appeals allowed: the High Court's orders, the arrest orders and memos and the remand orders set aside; the appellants to be released forthwith unless required in another case; no costs (para 36).

Source Supreme Court of India, www.sci.gov.in — judgment dated 03.10.2023

View PDF View Full Judgment Text

Key holdings

A written copy of the grounds of arrest must be given to every person arrested under Section 19 PMLA (para 35).
A remand order cannot validate an arrest that does not comply with Section 19 (paras 13, 16).
Not answering questions or not confessing is not a ground for arrest under Section 19 (para 25).
Sensitive material in the grounds may be redacted before the copy is given (para 34).
The ED must act transparently and fairly and not vindictively (para 20).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

Pankaj Bansal and his father Basant Bansal, linked to the M3M Group, obtained interim protection from the Delhi High Court on 09.06.2023 in the ED's first money-laundering case, in which they were not named (paras 4-5, 19). On 13.06.2023 the ED recorded a second case based on an April 2023 bribery FIR and summoned them in the first; when they appeared on 14.06.2023 they were served fresh summons and arrested in the second case (paras 6, 19). The Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to set aside the arrests and remand (para 2).

Court's Findings

A remand order cannot validate an arrest that does not meet Section 19, and a court remanding a PMLA arrestee under Section 167 CrPC must verify that its conditions are met (paras 13, 16). The Panchkula remand order recorded no finding that the judge examined the grounds of arrest (para 18). Recording the second case and arresting the appellants within about a day of their interim protection, while not telling the Delhi High Court about the second FIR, showed a complete lack of bona fides (paras 19-23). Failure to answer questions or confess is not a ground for arrest, since Section 19 needs reasons to believe the person is guilty (para 25). Under Article 22(1) the grounds must be conveyed meaningfully, because the arrested person needs them to meet the twin bail conditions of Section 45 (para 29). A written copy avoids disputes over whether the grounds were read out, and any sensitive material can be redacted (paras 32-34). The contrary Delhi and Bombay High Court decisions do not lay down the correct law (para 35).

Legal Principle

Under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 19(1) of the PMLA, the authorised officer must furnish a copy of the written grounds of arrest to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception; oral reading is not enough, and a remand order cannot cure an arrest that breaches Section 19 (paras 16, 35).

Precedents Relied Upon

Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others v. Union of India and others 2022 (10) SCALE 577
Explained Discussed at ¶ 10, 14, 26, 28
Section 19 PMLA safeguards upheld; informing the arrestee of the grounds satisfies Article 22(1), though the mode of informing was not settled there.
V. Senthil Balaji v. The State represented by Deputy Director and others Criminal Appeal Nos. 2284-2285 of 2023, decided on 07.08.2023
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 15, 32-33
The authorised officer must record reasons and serve the grounds of arrest; non-compliance entitles the arrested person to release.
Madhu Limaye and others (1969) 1 SCC 292
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 17
A remand order does not cure the constitutional infirmity of an arrest that violates Article 22(1).

View all precedents (5)

State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh (1980) 2 SCC 471
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 21
Meaning of mala fides in the exercise of power: power used for a purpose other than the one for which it was given.
Santosh S/o Dwarkadas Fafat v. State of Maharashtra (2017) 9 SCC 714
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 25
Custodial interrogation is not for obtaining a confession; an accused who does not confess is not for that reason non-cooperative.