Short answer: Legally, yes. Section 19 PMLA allows an authorised ED officer to arrest a person, including someone who has come in answer to a summons, if material in the officer’s possession gives a reason to believe, recorded in writing, that the person is guilty of money laundering. But the Supreme Court has made strict safeguards mandatory: written grounds of arrest must be given, the reasons to believe must be shared, and an arrest that breaks these rules is illegal.
What Section 19 requires
Under Section 19(1), only the Director, a Deputy Director, an Assistant Director or another authorised officer can arrest. The officer must have material in his possession, must have a reason to believe that the person is guilty of an offence under the Act, and must record those reasons in writing. The person must be informed of the grounds of arrest. Under Section 19(3), he must be produced within 24 hours before the Special Court or Magistrate having jurisdiction.
Written grounds of arrest
In Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (3 October 2023), Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar held that a copy of the written grounds of arrest must be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. Reading them out is not enough, and non-compliance means the person must be released. The Court also held that a remand order cannot validate an unlawful arrest, and that evasive replies or a refusal to confess do not by themselves justify arrest.
In Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (15 May 2024), Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta applied the same rule to the anti-terror law and drew a clear line between formal ‘reasons for arrest’ in an arrest memo and ‘grounds of arrest’, which must be specific to the person. The arrest was set aside because written grounds were not given before remand and counsel had no fair chance to oppose it. In Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (6 November 2025), the Supreme Court extended written grounds to arrests under all statutes, in a language the arrestee understands, and at least two hours before production for remand. In July 2026 a bench flagged a possible conflict on the general rule for all offences, but for PMLA arrests Pankaj Bansal remains the governing authority.
Reasons to believe and judicial review
In Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement (12 July 2024), Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta held that the power of arrest under Section 19(1) is not for the purpose of investigation. A reason to believe is not the same as grave suspicion, the ED must also consider material that favours the person, and the arrestee is entitled to the reasons to believe so that the arrest can be challenged; any redaction is for the court to approve. The question whether the ‘need and necessity’ of arrest is a separate ground of challenge was referred to a larger bench.
After the court takes cognizance
In Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement (16 May 2024), Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that once the Special Court has taken cognizance of the ED’s complaint, the ED cannot arrest an accused named in it under Section 19. If it wants custody, it must apply to the Special Court, which may allow custody only if custodial interrogation is needed.
Related questions
What should I ask for if I am arrested?
Ask for the written grounds of arrest and confirm that you have received a copy, and note the time of arrest. Ask that your family and lawyer be informed. You must be produced before the court within 24 hours, and your lawyer can raise any defect in the grounds or reasons at the remand hearing.
Can an illegal arrest be set aside?
Yes. In Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha, the Supreme Court set aside the arrests and remand orders and directed release. Challenges are usually raised at remand, in the High Court, or before the Supreme Court.
Is not answering satisfactorily a ground for arrest?
Not by itself. Pankaj Bansal held that non-cooperation in the sense of evasive replies would not be enough to make a person liable to arrest under Section 19, and that the ED cannot expect a confession. The test is the reason to believe based on material.
Does interim protection from a court stop an ED arrest?
A court order granting protection binds the ED in the case it covers. In Pankaj Bansal, a second ECIR was registered within a day of interim protection in the first, and the Supreme Court found the resulting arrest arbitrary. Check the scope of any protection carefully.
Practical points
- Carry a list of family and counsel contact numbers when you appear.
- If arrested, read the written grounds carefully and keep the copy safe.
- Note whether the grounds are specific to you or merely formal.
- Raise defects at the first remand hearing; do not wait.
Sources: Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, 3 Oct 2023; Prabir Purkayastha v. State, 15 May 2024; SC Observer on Arvind Kejriwal v. ED, 12 Jul 2024; SC Observer on Mihir Rajesh Shah, 6 Nov 2025.
For a confidential discussion on ED/PMLA matters, see ED and PMLA Defence.
General legal information only; not legal advice or solicitation.
