BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court has ruled that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) cannot act as an all-purpose investigating agency, observing that it is not a “super cop” empowered to pursue every offence that comes to its notice.
Justice M I Arun made the observations while allowing a batch of petitions filed by Malur Congress MLA K Y Nanjegowda, former director of the Kolar and Chikkaballapur Milk Union Ltd (KOMUL) Y B Ashwathanarayana and three others.
The petitioners had challenged proceedings initiated by the ED, including a complaint registered in November 2023, the confirmation of seizure of articles, summons issued to them and a private complaint filed by the agency before a special court.
The case originated from allegations that around 80 acres of land had been allotted illegally to 38 people by the Malur Land Grant Committee, headed by Nanjegowda. The ED registered a case in connection with the alleged land irregularities.
During its investigation, the agency also found material pointing to alleged irregularities in appointments at KOMUL. It shared the information with the Lokayukta police for further action.
After the Lokayukta police did not initiate proceedings based on the information, the ED filed a separate private complaint before a special court in connection with the alleged recruitment irregularities.
The High Court held that Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) requires the ED to share information about suspected violations of other laws with the relevant investigating agency. It cannot independently take up those offences simply because the other agency does not act on the information.
The court also said the ED was not empowered to file a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, now Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, when the competent investigating agencies had not acted on information shared under the PMLA.
Accepting the ED's position, the court observed, would effectively place the agency above other investigating authorities and assume that those agencies had failed in their duties.
The court emphasised that the Constitution provides for separation of powers and institutional checks and balances, adding that no single agency can be placed on a higher pedestal than others.
The ruling came in a case involving allegations of land allotment irregularities and recruitment-related violations at KOMUL. The allegations against the petitioners formed the basis of the proceedings challenged before the High Court.
With input from media reports.