Wife of MP must travel 1500 km for ED summons, SC says no to CrPC shield

She argued that as a woman, she couldn't be forced to travel from Kolkata to Delhi for questioning. The Supreme Court said — the PMLA doesn't care.

Rujira Banerjee, the wife of a sitting MP, stared at a criminal complaint for not appearing before the Enforcement Directorate in New Delhi. Her husband, Abhishek Banerjee, an MP from Kolkata, had been summoned too. The trail began with a CBI FIR registered in Kolkata on 27 November 2020 over illegal coal mining and theft from Eastern Coalfields Limited — Rs. 1,300 crore in alleged money laundering. The next day, on 28 November 2020, the ED registered its own case at its Head Investigative Unit in New Delhi and summoned the couple under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (a provision that lets the ED summon anyone, demand documents, and record statements). The summons letter, crisp and official, bore the Delhi address — a journey of 1,500 kilometres.

When a woman's shield under the CrPC was torn

The couple argued they should be examined in Kolkata, where the ED already has a Zonal Office and where they both live. Rujira Banerjee had an additional shield: Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (a provision that protects women from being called outside their residence for police questioning). She said it should stop her from travelling 1,500 kilometres to Delhi. The Delhi High Court dismissed both petitions on 11 March 2022. The courtroom fell silent as the judgment was read — the shield had not held. The Supreme Court upheld that decision on 9 September 2024, delivering a judgment that reshapes how the PMLA talks to the CrPC.

The question that split the room

The core question was simple: does Section 160 CrPC's protection for women — which says a woman cannot be required to appear anywhere other than her residence — apply to summons issued under Section 50 PMLA? The couple said yes. The ED said no — the PMLA is a self-contained code. It overrides the CrPC wherever the two conflict.

The couple also challenged the criminal complaint filed against Rujira Banerjee under Section 174 IPC (the offence of disobeying a lawful order from a public servant) for ignoring the summons. They argued that the entire process violated Article 21 of the Constitution (the right to life and personal liberty) because Section 50 PMLA lacked the procedural safeguards that the CrPC provides.

When the court called the PMLA a world of its own

The Supreme Court, in a judgment authored by Justice Bela M. Trivedi alongside Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, turned to its own precedent in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India. That case had already declared that the PMLA is a self-contained code — it has its own complete set of rules for summoning, recording statements, and collecting evidence. The court then examined two key provisions: Section 71 PMLA (which says the Act overrides any other law that is inconsistent with it) and Section 65 PMLA (which says the CrPC applies only where the PMLA is silent).

Read together, these provisions mean that wherever the PMLA has its own procedure, that procedure wins — even over the CrPC. The court also invoked Section 4(2) and Section 5 of the CrPC itself, which say that when a special law like the PMLA has its own procedure for trials and inquiries, the CrPC steps aside. The court held, in its ratio, that "Section 50 PMLA is a self-contained provision with its own procedure that overrides CrPC provisions including Section 160's territorial and gender-based protections."

Why Section 160 CrPC simply does not enter the room

The court found three fundamental cracks between Section 50 PMLA and Section 160 CrPC. First, Section 50 governs an inquiry into proceeds of crime — not an investigation under Chapter XII of the CrPC (the chapter that deals with police investigations). The authorities under PMLA are not police officers, so protections designed for police investigations do not automatically transfer. Second, statements recorded under Section 50 PMLA are admissible as evidence in court, unlike statements recorded under Sections 161 and 162 CrPC (which are largely inadmissible except for limited purposes). Third, Rule 11 of the PML Rules 2005 prescribes a specific procedure for summoning under Section 50 — including a specific form (Form V) — and this procedure must prevail over any CrPC procedure because of the PMLA's overriding effect.

The court also rejected the Article 21 challenge to the absence of procedural safeguards in Section 50. At the stage of issuing summons, the court held, the person cannot claim protection under Article 20(3) (the right against self-incrimination); the process of recording statements is for inquiry into proceeds of crime, not investigation for prosecution.

The gender-neutral summons and the Delhi link

The court noted that Section 50 PMLA is gender-neutral — it does not distinguish between men and women in its summoning power. The proviso to Section 160 CrPC that protects women, the court held, is a CrPC protection that cannot be imported into the PMLA's self-contained scheme. The court also rejected the argument that the ED's Annual Report, which shows its organizational structure, constitutes a binding direction under Section 51 PMLA (which deals with the jurisdiction of ED authorities). The court found that since Rs. 168 crore of the alleged proceeds of crime were transferred through vouchers to Delhi and overseas — a thick stack of vouchers, each one a paper trail — Delhi had enough territorial connection to justify summoning the couple there.

Why Article 21 did not save her

The couple argued that the absence of procedural safeguards in Section 50 PMLA violated Article 21. The court disagreed. It held that at the stage of issuing a summons — before any prosecution begins — a person cannot claim protection under Article 20(3) (the right against self-incrimination). The process of recording statements under Section 50, the court said, is for an inquiry into proceeds of crime, not for investigation leading to prosecution. The court also rejected the argument that the summons violated the right to life and personal liberty, holding that the PMLA's own procedural framework provides sufficient safeguards.

What this means for anyone summoned by the ED

For practitioners, the judgment delivers a clear message: the PMLA's summoning power under Section 50 is virtually untouchable by CrPC protections. If you are summoned by the ED, you must appear at the location specified in the summons — even if that location is 1,500 kilometres away, even if you are a woman, and even if the ED has an office closer to your home. The only challenge that might survive is a territorial nexus argument — but the court has set a very low bar for establishing that nexus.

THE PLAY: When the ED summons you under Section 50 PMLA, do not assume that CrPC protections like Section 160's territorial limits or gender-based shields will apply — the PMLA is a self-contained code, and the courts will enforce its summons without importing CrPC safeguards.

The appeals were dismissed as devoid of merit.