No Habeas Corpus After Remand; ED May Seek Custody Over Whole Investigation: Supreme Court in Senthil Balaji

Published: 20 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Supreme Court held that once a person arrested under Section 19 of the PMLA is remanded by a Magistrate, a writ of habeas corpus does not lie. The Enforcement Directorate can seek custody under Section 167(2) CrPC, and the 15 days of such custody may be spread over the whole 60- or 90-day investigation. It referred Anupam J. Kulkarni to a larger Bench (paras 88-91).

No Habeas Corpus After Remand; ED May Seek Custody Over Whole Investigation: Supreme Court in Senthil Balaji

Judgment Intelligence

Disposed Of

V. Senthil Balaji v. The State represented by Deputy Director and Ors.

2023 INSC 677

Criminal Appeal Nos. 2284-2285 of 2023 with Criminal Appeal Nos. 2286, 2287, 2288-2289 and 2290 of 2023

Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision: 7 August 2023
Bench: Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice M.M. Sundresh
Relevant Acts & Sections: Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 19, 62 and 65; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 41A and 167; Constitution of India - Articles 21, 22 and 226

Final Outcome

Appeals disposed of: the minister's and his wife's appeals dismissed, the Directorate allowed custody till 12.08.2023, and the Section 167(2) question referred to the Chief Justice for a larger Bench (paras 89-91).

Source Supreme Court of India, www.sci.gov.in — judgment dated 07.08.2023

View PDF View Full Judgment Text

Key holdings

Non-compliance with Section 19 PMLA benefits the arrestee and may attract action under Section 62 (para 88).
Section 41A CrPC has no application to an arrest under the PMLA (paras 33, 88).
A remand order is challenged before a higher forum, not by habeas corpus (para 88).
Time lost through a court order or act of God does not curtail the 15 days of custody (paras 87-88).
Whether police custody is confined to the first 15 days is referred to a larger Bench (paras 88, 91).

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

A Tamil Nadu minister was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 19 of the PMLA on 14.06.2023 and remanded to judicial custody the same day (paras 5-8). His wife filed a habeas corpus petition, and the Sessions Judge later gave the Directorate 8 days of custody, which could not take effect because he was in hospital (paras 8-11). The Madras High Court Judges differed; the third Judge held the petition not maintainable and the Directorate entitled to custody (paras 16-18). Both sides appealed (para 19).

Court's Findings

Habeas corpus lies only against illegal detention; a reasoned remand order is a judicial act to be challenged before a higher forum (paras 29-31). Section 41A CrPC does not apply to an arrest under the PMLA, which has its own stringent procedure (para 33). The PMLA is a sui generis law, and Section 19 contemplates a rigorous procedure before arrest (paras 46, 82). Section 167 CrPC applies to PMLA investigations, as Deepak Mahajan settled, and supplements Section 19 (paras 26, 83). 'Such custody' in Section 167(2) includes custody with investigating agencies other than the police, and 'custody' means actual custody (paras 59, 85-86). The 15 days need not fall within the first 15 days of remand; the Court could not agree with Anupam J. Kulkarni (paras 76-77). By the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, time lost through court orders or hospitalisation does not curtail custody (paras 79, 87). The remand orders showed application of mind, so the petition was not maintainable (para 81). Section 167 is a bridge between liberty and investigation (para 88).

Legal Principle

When an arrestee under Section 19 of the PMLA is forwarded to a Magistrate, custody becomes judicial and habeas corpus does not lie; the Directorate may seek custody under Section 167(2) CrPC, and 15 days of such custody may be taken at any time within the investigation period (para 88).

Precedents Relied Upon

Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan (1994) 3 SCC 440
Applied Discussed at ¶ 26, 83
Section 167 CrPC applies to arrests by authorised officers under special Acts.
CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni (1992) 3 SCC 141
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 22, 76, 88
Police custody only within the first 15 days of remand; doubted and referred for reconsideration.
Ashok Munilal Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement (2018) 16 SCC 158
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 26, 72
Section 167(2) CrPC applies to cases under the PMLA.

View all precedents (6)

Budh Singh v. State of Punjab (2009) 9 SCC 266
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 79
A larger Bench that followed Anupam J. Kulkarni.
Chaganti Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1986) 3 SCC 141
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 78
Section 167(2) read with Section 309 on periods of remand.
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129
Applied Discussed at ¶ 61
The maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit: no party should suffer from an act of the court.