New Delhi – The Enforcement Directorate (ED), India’s top agency for probing financial crimes, is facing growing criticism over its functioning, with questions being raised about its credibility, impartiality, and effectiveness. Recent data presented in the Rajya Sabha by Minister of State for Finance Pankaj Chaudhary has intensified these concerns, prompting judicial rebukes and political outcry.
Between 2015 and June 2025, the ED registered 5,892 cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), yet managed to secure convictions in only 15 cases over the span of ten years. Of the 1,398 prosecution complaints filed, just 300 reached the stage of framing charges, with convictions achieved in merely eight cases.
This stark conviction rate has fuelled allegations of the agency being misused for political purposes. Critics claim the ED acts swiftly in registering cases—especially against opposition leaders—but often fails to present solid evidence in court, resulting in prolonged trials or dismissals.
The Supreme Court has also expressed concern over the agency’s conduct in multiple cases. On May 22, 2025, a bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud accused the ED of “crossing all limits” during its probe into Tamil Nadu’s state-run TASMAC and violating federal principles. Similarly, on April 11, 2025, Justice A.S. Oka’s bench slammed the ED for attempting to shift the Chhattisgarh Civil Supplies Corporation case to Delhi, reminding the agency to respect the rights of the accused.
In another sharp remark, a bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai questioned the ED’s role in a case involving the wife of Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, asking whether the agency was being used for “political battles.”
Despite these criticisms, the government has denied any political bias. In response to a question by Kerala MP A.A. Rahim, Minister Pankaj Chaudhary confirmed that 193 politicians have been booked under PMLA in the last decade, with only two convictions and no acquittals. The government also claimed it does not maintain data on the political affiliations of the accused and that investigations are based on credible evidence and subject to judicial review.
However, opposition parties and legal experts argue that the data paints a different picture—highlighting selective targeting and undermining the ED’s credibility. A senior opposition leader remarked, “If the ED had operated with fairness and transparency, it would not be under such intense scrutiny.”
Despite repeated criticism from the judiciary, there is little sign of structural reforms within the agency. Many now see the ED not as a neutral investigative body, but as an instrument for political vendetta aligned with the ruling party’s interests.
With its low conviction rates, political backlash, and multiple judicial censures, the ED is battling an unprecedented crisis of legitimacy. As debates over democratic accountability intensify, the spotlight remains firmly on the agency’s actions and the government’s intentions behind them.
Note: Inputs for this article have been taken from the original piece published by India Tomorrow, authored by Akhilesh Tripathi.
