The directive arrives at a time when the ED is under increasing pressure from the public and political circles alike. The agency, tasked with enforcing laws such as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), has recently come under fire for alleged misuse and selective targeting of opposition political figures. Critics argue that these new constraints on officers’ activities represent an effort to temper the growing perception of arbitrary power.
Previously, individuals summoned by the ED often complained about being called outside of typical working hours, leaving them with little time to prepare or respond. By setting this new protocol, the ED aims to bring a sense of order and transparency to its operations, providing clarity on the process and safeguarding those being questioned from unnecessary disruptions during off-hours.
Despite this development, the ED remains under intense public scrutiny for its handling of politically charged cases. In particular, opposition leaders have increasingly pointed to a rise in ED investigations targeting figures outside the ruling party, with some suggesting these actions are politically motivated. This has only deepened calls for regulatory oversight of the agency.
To counter accusations of misuse, the ED has highlighted its success in prosecuting high-profile cases under the PMLA and Fugitive Economic Offenders Act (FEOA). The conviction rate under the PMLA remains high, with reports indicating a 93.5% success rate, albeit from a small sample of completed cases. This figure significantly exceeds the national average conviction rate for criminal offenses but represents a limited fraction of the cases registered. Nonetheless, opposition leaders argue that the agency's focus has shifted disproportionately toward political adversaries, a claim that has sparked debate on whether the agency is acting within its mandate.
High-profile cases like the 2G Spectrum scam, the Vijay Mallya fraud investigation, and the Punjab National Bank scam have cemented the ED’s reputation as an indispensable entity in India's battle against financial fraud. However, its involvement in the arrests of political figures during election cycles, particularly opposition leaders, has led to allegations of bias. In March, a group of 14 opposition parties petitioned the Supreme Court over claims that the ED was being used as a tool of political harassment, further inflaming concerns about the agency’s neutrality.
The ED’s proactive stance in addressing public concerns through the new directive could be seen as a step toward restoring public confidence. In doing so, the agency has sought to ensure that investigations are more streamlined and in line with standard bureaucratic procedures, while still maintaining the stringent enforcement required to combat financial crimes. It is expected that the directive will bring more structure to interactions between officers and those summoned, providing individuals with more reasonable notice periods and eliminating the need for middle-of-the-night visits by officials.
While supporters of the directive argue that it ensures greater transparency, opponents still question the timing and motivation behind this measure. With political stakes remaining high, particularly in light of the approaching general elections, any policy changes within the ED are likely to be viewed through a political lens. Moreover, the directive's true effectiveness in reducing tensions between the agency and political figures will be closely monitored.
From a legal standpoint, the move may be seen as aligning with broader judicial reforms aimed at ensuring due process. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the need for fair treatment in ED proceedings, particularly in cases where bail conditions have been contested under the PMLA. However, the court has also upheld the agency’s wide-ranging powers, despite criticism over certain amendments to the law, such as the reversal of the presumption of innocence for the accused.
The directive could also serve to address growing public outcry over the arbitrary manner in which the ED operates. With more than 5,900 cases registered under the PMLA, the agency has often been accused of overreach in its investigations. By imposing office hours, the ED could prevent the kind of public backlash seen in other high-profile cases where investigative techniques were questioned.