Context

• The episode involving film-producer Akash Bhaskaran and the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in 2024–25 illustrates a conflict between investigative power and judicial scrutiny.
• Raids on Bhaskaran’s home were accompanied by leaks, allegations of a ₹1000-crore scam, and media spectacle built around seized devices and purported messages.
• Hashtags and memes amplified accusations long before any formal establishment of wrongdoing.
• When challenged in court, the raids were deemed illegal, all proceedings were stayed, and the ED issued an unconditional apology.
• The Supreme Court later halted broader action, warning that the ED was violating federal principles and crossing all limits

The Inversion of Legal Process

• The Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) mandates that offenses be derivative, requiring an identifiable predicate crime that generates illicit proceeds.
• Recent enforcement patterns reveal a reversed sequence: accusations of money laundering arise first, followed by attempts to locate an underlying offense to justify prior action.
• This inversion expands discretionary power and collapses the distinction between suspicion and proof.
• The PMLA equips the ED with sweeping authority. Under its provisions, individuals may be summoned without knowing whether they are witnesses or accused; properties may be attached provisionally; and arrests may occur without warrant under subjective reason to believe.
• Bail restrictions invert the presumption of innocence, compelling the accused to demonstrate non-culpability.
• These powers were originally justified in contexts such as terror financing, drug trafficking, and organised crime, yet their increasing use against political actors, state ministers, and private citizens has altered their institutional character.

Media Performance and the Construction of Guilt

• Media outlets frequently act as accelerants, amplifying raids and leaks into spectacles of pre-judgment.
• In the Bhaskaran case, visuals of seized devices, WhatsApp chats, and alleged luxury goods circulated widely.
• Private news channels and online creators produced an environment in which allegations gained the status of fact without verification.
• Sensational reporting, particularly when derived from leaks, transforms investigatory acts into public indictments.
• This pattern contributes to media trials, reputational punishment, and political pressure irrespective of judicial outcome. Retractions rarely follow and exonerations seldom receive equal coverage.
• Citizens are left consuming narratives that blend investigation, accusation, and entertainment in ways that weaken the rule of law and degrade standards of verification.

Institutional Misuse, Selectivity, and Credibility Crisis

• Multiple ED officers have been arrested on charges of extortion and bribery, including cases in Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Mumbai, and Odisha.
• Suspension orders and brief press releases have followed, but no structural reform has emerged.
• Such incidents erode claims of moral authority and enable judicial doubt regarding whether the PMLA is used to secure convictions or to prolong incarceration.
• Political selectivity further fuels distrust. High-profile raids on West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, I-PAC offices, and Tamil Nadu Minister K.N. Nehru coincided with electoral or political tensions.
• Letters alleging scams were leaked to the press before adjudication, shaping public opinion and inducing reputational damage. Critics argue that such tactics convert anti-corruption enforcement into political theatre, stressing optics over evidence.
• The agency’s invocation of Article 32 in the Supreme Court, even as it is accused of arbitrary conduct, underscores a double standard.

Democratic Stakes and Constitutional Guardrails

• Robust anti-corruption enforcement remains essential to the integrity of financial markets.
• However, when coercive power becomes arbitrary, it threatens democratic norms. The ED’s trajectory shows how extraordinary powers, if unchecked, can mutate into a form of state overreach.
• Each baseless case normalises weakened procedural safeguards; each media spectacle corrodes public trust in institutions; each selective investigation invites retaliation rather than reform.
• Courts currently represent the primary check on excess. The Supreme Court’s review of the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary judgment will determine whether PMLA powers require recalibration.
• Yet episodic interventions cannot replace durable institutional guardrails.

Conclusion

• An effective framework for combating financial crime must balance investigative authority with constitutional restraint.
• When agencies exercise extraordinary powers without transparency, judicial oversight becomes the last defence against arbitrary state action.
• Media sensationalism and political selectivity further erode public confidence, weakening both institutions and democratic culture.
• Restoring equilibrium requires reforms that defend accountability without sacrificing the rule of law.