Does ED Have Power For Further Investigation? Supreme Court To Examine In IAS Officer Saumya Chaurasia's Plea

The Supreme Court recently agreed to consider a writ petition filed by IAS officer Saumya Chaurasia challenging her arrest done by ED under the wider interpretation of 'further investigation' under the PMLA Act 2002.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi issued notice in the matter.

The writ petition is filed by civil servant Saumya Chaurasia, who has been allegedly involved in the Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam and was arrested in December 2025 by the ED and still remains in custody.

The petitioner seeks to challenge the interpretation given to the term 'further investigation' under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

The plea states that "Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is a self-contained statute which consciously does not confer any substantive power of “further investigation” upon the Enforcement Directorate. Section 44 of the Act merely governs the procedure relating to cognizance and trial before the Special Court and cannot be construed as a source of investigative authority. Explanation (ii) to Section 44(1) is purely clarificatory and cannot be interpreted to confer substantive investigative powers in the absence of an express enabling provision. Section 65 of the Act permits application of the Code of Criminal Procedure only insofar as it is not inconsistent with the PMLA. Importing Section 173(8) of the CrPC or Section 193(9) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 into the PMLA would be wholly impermissible and contrary to legislative intent."

In the present case, the petitioner states to have been facing investigation for 3 more than 3 years and was not arrested until December 2025.

The plea explains that the arrest of the petitioner is a residual or formality arrest and was done to ensure permanent custody or 'evergreen custody' . It states :

"The Petitioner was named in the prosecution complaint dated 19.06.2024 and five supplementary complaints over a prolonged period of time, yet was not arrested for more than three years. Immediately after her arrest on 16.12.2025, a comprehensive prosecution complaint running into 518 pages, along with 172 documents, was filed within a span of ten days. This conclusively demonstrates that all alleged material was already in the possession of the Enforcement Directorate and that the arrest was neither required nor justified."

Stressing that previously, too, the petitioner was granted bail in other matters and has never been alleged to have violated any bail conditions, the plea argues :

"Such arrest is nothing but an attempt to evergreen custody, a practice whereby investigating agencies repeatedly arrest an individual on the same set of material in different proceedings, one after another, thereby frustrating the right to liberty."

The petitioner submits that in a range of Supreme Court decisions, it is held that 'further investigation' can only be done with the court's permission. Reliance is placed upon Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu v. State of Bihar, where directions were issued that further investigation without leave of the Court is impermissible and that judicial control is an integral safeguard.

In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, it was held that further evidence can be brought on record only with the permission of the competent court.

The reliefs sought against the Assistant Director of ED and ED (respondent no. 2 and 3 ) are :

1. Quashing the arrest dated 16.12.2025 of the Petitioner alongwith Reasons to Believe dated 16.12.2025 u/S 19(1) of PMLA, Grounds of Arrest dated 16.12.2025 by the Respondent No. 2 and 3 in ECIR/RPZO/04/2024, and the Remand Order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the Ld. Special Court (PMLA), Raipur, with all proceedings emanating therefrom, being illegal and consequently, release the Petitioner from custody; and

2. Declaring that the conduct of 'further investigation' by the Enforcement Directorate is illegal and that any such further investigation or supplementary prosecution complaint filed pursuant thereto is void in law in ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 registered by Respondent No. 2 and 3

Notably, the plea also highlights the recent Chhattisgarh High Court order passed in the plea of the co-accused Chaitanya Baghel challenging his arrest. Here, the Court observed that further investigation can only be conducted with permission, but it does not vitiate the arrest as it is merely an “irregularity” and not an “illegality”.

In October 2025, the Supreme Court issued notice Baghel's plea challenging the High Court order.

Counsel for the petitioners : Kapil Sibal Sr Adv; Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr Adv; Mayank Jain Adv; Madhur Jain Adv; Arpit Goel Adv; Harshwardhan Parghaniha Adv; Sidharth Dave, Sr Adv

Case Details : SAUMYA CHAURASIA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Read order here