ED can summon you anywhere, even if you're a woman: SC

The ED summoned a woman to Delhi. She said: under CrPC, women can't be called outside their home district. The Supreme Court said: that rule doesn't apply here.

The summons arrived in Kolkata — a crisp legal document bearing the seal of the Enforcement Directorate's Delhi office. Rujira Banerjee, the wife of a Member of Parliament from Kolkata, was asked to appear for questioning in a Rs. 1,300 crore coal theft and money laundering investigation. Her lawyers had a simple argument: the Code of Criminal Procedure says women cannot be summoned outside their home district. The Supreme Court's answer reshaped the rules of engagement for every person summoned under India's anti-money laundering law.

When the summons landed in Kolkata

The investigation began with a coal theft scandal. Illegal excavation in leasehold areas of Eastern Coalfields Limited had allegedly generated massive proceeds of crime. The ED traced money laundering estimated at Rs. 1,300 crore. During its inquiry, the agency summoned Abhishek Banerjee, a Member of Parliament from West Bengal, and his wife Rujira Banerjee to appear at the ED's headquarters in Delhi.

Both objected. They argued that the ED has a zonal office in Kolkata, where they reside. Why should they travel to Delhi for questioning? When Rujira Banerjee did not comply with the summons, the ED filed a criminal complaint against her under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code — the offence of disobeying a lawful order from a public servant. The couple challenged the summons and the criminal complaint before the Delhi High Court, which dismissed their petitions. They then appealed to the Supreme Court.

In the courtroom, the air was thick with the rustle of legal papers as the bench settled into their chairs. The appellants' counsel argued with visible intensity, their voices echoing off the high ceilings of the Supreme Court.

The CrPC shield that wasn't

The core of the appellants' argument rested on Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This provision gives police officers the power to require the attendance of witnesses. But it comes with two important safeguards. First, no woman can be required to appear anywhere other than the place where she resides. Second, a person cannot be summoned beyond the local limits of the police station's jurisdiction.

The appellants argued that these protections should apply to ED summons through Section 65 of the PMLA — the provision that says the CrPC applies to PMLA proceedings where no specific procedure is prescribed. They also invoked Article 21 of the Constitution — the right to life and personal liberty — and Article 20(3) — the protection against self-incrimination.

The ED countered with a different argument. The PMLA, they said, is a self-contained code. It has its own summoning power under Section 50, its own overriding effect under Section 71, and its own rules for how summons must be issued. The CrPC's territorial and gender-based protections simply do not fit into this framework.

Why the court said the CrPC doesn't apply

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, delivered its judgment on September 9, 2024. The court held that Section 50 of the PMLA is a self-contained provision that prescribes its own procedure for summoning persons. This procedure includes Rule 11 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering (Forms, Search and Seizure) Rules, 2005, which requires summons to be issued in Form V — a standardised document bearing the authority of the ED.

The court found a "glaring inconsistency" between Section 50 of the PMLA and Sections 160 and 161 of the CrPC. Under the CrPC, a police officer can only summon a person within the local limits of his jurisdiction. Under the PMLA, the ED's summoning power is not territorially restricted. The court relied on its earlier judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, which held that the PMLA is a complete code in itself. Where the PMLA provides its own procedure, the CrPC cannot override it.

"glaring inconsistency" — the court's own words, written into the judgment, capturing the irreconcilable conflict between the two legal regimes.

On the gender question, the court was equally clear. Section 50 of the PMLA is gender-neutral. It makes no distinction between men and women. The proviso to Section 160 CrPC that protects women from being summoned outside their place of residence does not apply to proceedings under Section 50 PMLA. The court held that the PMLA's overriding effect under Section 71 read with Section 65 means that the CrPC's procedural safeguards cannot be imported into PMLA proceedings where they conflict with the PMLA's own scheme.

During the hearing, the bench listened in near-silence, the only sound being the occasional flip of a page or the scratch of a pen on paper. Justice Trivedi's questions were pointed, cutting through the arguments with precision.

Why Delhi had jurisdiction

The appellants also argued that the ED's Delhi office lacked territorial jurisdiction over them. They pointed to the ED's organizational structure, which includes zonal offices across India, and argued that the Kolkata zonal office should have handled the summons. The court rejected this argument. It noted that the ED's Headquarters Investigation Unit (HIU) in Delhi is not restricted to any territorial jurisdiction. More importantly, the court found that adequate territorial nexus existed with Delhi. The investigation had revealed that approximately Rs. 168 crore had been transferred through vouchers to Delhi — a stack of documents that, laid flat, would have covered a conference table, each voucher a paper trail leading to the national capital. This was enough to establish that the proceeds of crime had a connection to Delhi.

The court also dismissed the argument that Section 50 PMLA violates Article 20(3) or Article 21 of the Constitution. At the stage of summoning, the court observed, the person is not an accused. The statement is taken for the purpose of inquiry into proceeds of crime, not for prosecution. The procedural safeguards under Rule 11 and Form V of the PML Rules, 2005, provide adequate protection.

The procedural journey: from Kolkata to Delhi to the Supreme Court

The case followed a clear procedural path. The CBI, Anti-Corruption Branch, Kolkata, and the ED's Headquarters Investigation Unit in New Delhi registered an FIR and ECIR on November 27, 2020. The investigation into the coal theft and money laundering scandal began in earnest. When the summons were challenged, the matter reached the Delhi High Court, which dismissed the writ petition and criminal miscellaneous case on March 11, 2022. The couple then filed criminal appeals before the Supreme Court, which were finally dismissed on September 9, 2024.

The Supreme Court's judgment in Abhishek Banerjee & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement — cited as 2024 INSC 668 — now stands as a definitive interpretation of the PMLA's summoning powers.

What this means for anyone summoned by the ED

The judgment has immediate practical consequences. A woman summoned by the ED under Section 50 PMLA cannot refuse to appear on the ground that she is a woman and cannot be called outside her home district. A person summoned to Delhi cannot refuse on the ground that the ED has a zonal office closer to their residence. The only question is whether the summons was validly issued under Section 50 PMLA and whether adequate territorial nexus exists with the location from which the summons was issued.

The court dismissed both appeals, holding them devoid of merits. The criminal complaint against Rujira Banerjee under Section 174 IPC will proceed.

The court also clarified that Section 50 PMLA does not violate the constitutional protections against self-incrimination or the right to life and personal liberty. At the stage of summoning, the person is not an accused. The statement is taken for inquiry into proceeds of crime, not for prosecution. The procedural safeguards under Rule 11 and Form V of the PML Rules, 2005, provide adequate protection.

THE PLAY: If you receive an ED summons under Section 50 PMLA, you must comply regardless of your gender or the distance from your residence — the only valid challenge is whether the summons was properly issued under the PMLA's own framework, not under the CrPC.

THE TEST: The next time a woman is summoned by the ED from across the country, she will not be able to invoke the CrPC's gender-based protection. The only question will be: was the summons validly issued under the PMLA's own framework?

WHAT THIS MEANS: The Supreme Court has drawn a clear line. The PMLA is a self-contained code. Its summoning power under Section 50 is gender-neutral and territorially unrestricted. The CrPC's safeguards — designed for police investigations — do not apply to ED proceedings. For anyone facing an ED summons, the message is simple: comply, or face criminal consequences.

The summons landed in Kolkata. The answer came from Delhi. And the CrPC's old shield no longer works.