The Enforcement Directorate enforces FEMA, the PMLA and the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act; this entry sets out its legal basis, official case figures, court rulings, and what each side says about how its powers are used.
A dossier is a fact file. It records what is on record and who said what; it does not give a verdict. It is not scored and earns or loses no party points. How dossiers are written.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) is a central agency under the Ministry of Finance that enforces the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act [3]. The PMLA was enacted in January 2003 under the Vajpayee-era government and brought into force on 1 July 2005 under the Manmohan Singh-era government [4]. It has been amended several times, including through the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 [7].
The Supreme Court’s 27 July 2022 judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary upheld the ED’s powers of arrest, attachment and the stringent bail conditions, held ED officers are not police officers, and said the ECIR need not be supplied to the accused [1]. Review petitions were still being heard on preliminary issues in 2025 [14]. Later benches have set limits: written grounds of arrest are required [2], bail may be read into s.45 after long delay [16], and a bench said the ED was crossing limits in a state-agency probe [17].
Official data show a rise in registered PMLA cases and searches after 2014, with a larger count of convictions in the later period than the single digits in earlier ones; however, the counts use different measures and periods [5][6][7][8]. The government and the ED say verdicts in completed trials support their cases and that the agency does not act on political affiliation [10][11]. Opposition parties and some analysts say the proportion of opposition politicians among those investigated has risen [13][20]. The government has told Parliament it keeps no party-wise data [9][10].
State agencies have also arrested opposition leaders, in states governed by different parties [21]. This entry reports the figures and statements side by side and does not draw a conclusion on motive.
In date order. Each item shows what kind of statement it is, who is the actor, and where it comes from.
Enforcement Directorate formed.
Source [3]: Enforcement DirectorateForeign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) takes effect; the ED enforces it.
Source [3]: Enforcement DirectoratePrevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 receives assent (Vajpayee-era government, centre-1998-vajpayee).
Source [4]: Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002PMLA comes into force; enforcement is assigned to the ED (Manmohan Singh-era government, centre-2004-manmohan-1).
Source [4]: Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002Supreme Court (Nikesh Tarachand Shah) sets aside the twin-condition bail clause in s.45 PMLA as then worded, citing Articles 14 and 21.
Source [4]: Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018 enforcement assigned to the ED. Parliament re-enacts a revised s.45 through Act 13 of 2018.
Source [3]: Enforcement DirectorateFinance (No. 2) Act, 2019 amends the PMLA (a proviso to s.44(1)(b) on closure reports takes effect; its amendments also touched ss.3 and 44(1)(d), per a Supreme Court note) (Modi-era government, centre-2019-modi-2).
Source [7]: ED files 6,312 cases while conviction in 120 cases in nearly 12 years (Lok Sabha reply, Dec 2025)Supreme Court, Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India: upholds the contested PMLA provisions (see claims and positions).
Source [1]: Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 27 July 2022 (opened; paragraph 187 conclusions read)Supreme Court, hearing a review petition, says two aspects need reconsideration: non-supply of the ECIR to the accused and the reversal of the burden of proof.
Source [4]: Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002Supreme Court holds the 2021 and 2022 extensions of ED Director Sanjay Kumar Mishra illegal, upholds the 2021 amendments permitting up to five years' total tenure, and lets him continue to 31 July 2023.
Source [15]: SC declares extension of ED director Mishra illegal, allows him to continue until July 31 (seen in search results, not opened)Supreme Court, Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India: written grounds of arrest must be furnished to the arrested person under s.19 PMLA.
Source [2]: Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, 3 October 2023 (opened via Indian Kanoon; para 35 read)A three-judge bench tells the ED's counsel, orally in a bail plea, to concentrate on the quality of prosecution and evidence, after a Lok Sabha reply on conviction numbers (oral observation as reported; not a holding).
Source [12]: Focus on quality prosecution and evidence, SC tells ED on low conviction rate in PMLA casesSupreme Court grants bail to Manish Sisodia in the ED and CBI excise-policy cases, saying that in case of delay coupled with long incarceration the right to bail has to be read into s.45 PMLA.
Source [16]: Delhi excise policy: Supreme Court grants bail to Manish Sisodia in ED and CBI cases (seen in search results, not opened)Supreme Court stays the ED's PMLA probe into TASMAC (Tamil Nadu), with the bench saying orally, as reported, that the ED was crossing all limits and violating the federal structure; the matter was to be heard after the vacation.
Source [17]: ED violating Constitution, crossing all limits: Supreme Court stays PMLA probe in TASMAC case (seen in search results, not opened)Supreme Court bench begins hearing the review petitions against Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, first on maintainability; nothing is decided on merits.
Source [14]: Review of SC's Vijay Madanlal judgment, Day 1: bench determines scope of issuesFindings, official statements, data and events are on record. An allegation is a claim that no finding has established; it is marked with a dashed border, a warning triangle and the words "Not established", and always shows its status and any response.
| Claim | Type | Made by | Status | Response | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (27 July 2022) held, among other points, that the ECIR is an internal document and supplying it to the accused is not mandatory if the grounds of arrest are disclosed at arrest; that s.19 (arrest), s.24 (presumption), s.5 (attachment) and the s.45 twin bail conditions as amended in 2018 are valid; that s.50 statements are not barred by Article 20(3) and ED authorities are not police officers; that the 2019 Explanation to s.3 is clarificatory; and that whether some amendments could be passed as Finance Act provisions is left to the larger bench in Rojer Mathew. | Finding | Supreme Court of India (paragraph 187 of the judgment) | In force. Review petitions pending; on 31 July 2025 a bench began hearing preliminary issues of maintainability. The outcome was not located in the sources used. | The Union argued in review that petitioners were trying to widen the two issues for which review was allowed in August 2022; petitioners (represented by Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi) seek all 13 questions heard. | [1]: Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 27 July 2022 (opened; paragraph 187 conclusions read) |
| ED has a 93.6% conviction rate, based on 47 decided cases with three acquittals. | Official statement | Rahul Navin, ED Director, 1 May 2025 (ED Day) | Stated by the agency. The same Director said 1,739 cases were at trial stages as of March 2025 and acknowledged that many probes have been pending for a very long time. | Opposition parties describe the conviction rate as poor; the Director said court verdicts had overwhelmingly supported the strength of enforcement actions. | [11]: PMLA action picked momentum after 2014; conviction rate over 93 pc: ED Director (1 May 2025) |
| Cumulative convictions are a small fraction of cases registered (for example 40 convictions in 5,297 cases for 2014-24, per an August 2024 Lok Sabha reply; 120 in 6,312 cases for about 11 years 7 months, per a December 2025 Lok Sabha reply). | Data | Ministry of Finance / Ministry of Home Affairs written replies in Parliament, as reported | Figures are as reported; the denominators (cases registered) and numerators (cases or accused convicted) are not the same measure as the ED's 93.6% figure, which counts only cases that reached a trial verdict. | The same August 2024 ministry reply gave the PMLA conviction rate as around 93 per cent for completed trials. | [12]: Focus on quality prosecution and evidence, SC tells ED on low conviction rate in PMLA cases |
| In a bail plea a Supreme Court bench orally told the ED to concentrate on the quality of prosecution and evidence, criticised reliance on witness statements and said the ED should do some scientific investigation. | Official statement | Supreme Court bench of Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan JJ., 7 August 2024 | Oral observation reported by The Wire; not a judgment holding. | The ED was represented by Additional Solicitor General S. V. Raju. A response to the observation was not located. | [12]: Focus on quality prosecution and evidence, SC tells ED on low conviction rate in PMLA cases |
| Not established by a findingOf 121 prominent politicians who came under ED scrutiny in 2014 to September 2022, 115 were from the opposition (about 95 per cent), against 14 of 26 under the UPA era. | Allegation | Indian Express investigation, September 2022 (figures here come from a search-result summary; the original was not opened). Cited by 14 opposition parties in a Supreme Court petition (March 2023). | An analysis of 'prominent' politicians whose selection criteria are not set out in the pages opened; not a court finding. The Supreme Court heard the 14-party petition on 5 April 2023 and the petition was disposed of without the relief sought, per a secondary summary. | ED said, in reported comments, that its conviction rate in cases that reached trial was over 96 per cent. The Union government told the Lok Sabha that ED does not distinguish cases on political affiliation, religion or otherwise and that it maintains no information on a trend against opposition leaders. | [20]: 14 opposition parties move Supreme Court against arbitrary use of ED, CBI; hearing on April 5 (seen in search results, not opened) |
| ED lodged 132 PMLA cases against politicians (sitting and former) from 2019 to 31 July 2024; trials were completed in 5, with one conviction (2020). | Data | Minister of State for Finance Pankaj Chaudhary, Rajya Sabha written reply, 6 August 2024 | Official figure as reported. The reply did not give party-wise or state-wise breakdowns: 'State-wise data is not maintained by the Enforcement Directorate.' | Not applicable; this is the government's own figure. | [9]: ED lodged 132 money laundering cases against politicians since 2019 (Rajya Sabha reply, 6 Aug 2024) |
| A March 2025 Lok Sabha reply stated 193 ED cases were registered against MPs, MLAs and political leaders over the last 10 years. | Data | Pankaj Chaudhary, Lok Sabha reply to A. A. Rahim, reported March 2025 | Headline figure from a secondary page; the year-wise table and outcomes were in an unreadable chart image. Government said it keeps no party or state breakdown and no information on a trend against opposition leaders, and that ED takes up cases on credible evidence. | Government statement: ED actions are subject to judicial review by the Adjudicating Authority, Appellate Tribunal, Special Courts, High Courts and the Supreme Court. | [10]: 193 ED cases against MPs, MLAs and political leaders (Lok Sabha reply to A. A. Rahim) |
| Not established by a findingLeaders who faced investigation and then joined the BJP saw cases slow or close: a media analysis reported that 25 such leaders had joined the BJP since 2014 and 23 got relief. | Allegation | The Indian Express analysis, as headlined by The Wire (only the headline was readable; the method and party breakdown were not) | Not tested in court as a pattern. Individual case outcomes depend on the facts of each case. A BJP response was not located in the pages opened. | Not located. In the CBI-focused Indian Express piece, a CBI official said many cases were court-ordered and that any disproportionate share of opposition leaders was a coincidence. | [18]: 25 leaders facing corruption investigation joined BJP since 2014, 23 got reprieve (headline only readable) |
| Arrests of opposition leaders by state police in states governed by different parties, as reported: Andhra Pradesh CID arrested TDP chief N. Chandrababu Naidu on 9 September 2023 (YSRCP government); Assam Police arrested Congress's Pawan Khera on 23 February 2023 (BJP government); Maharashtra Police arrested BJP's Narayan Rane on 24 August 2021 (Maha Vikas Aghadi government). | Event | Reported by The News Minute/Tribune, Scroll and Udayavani | Naidu: CID named him accused 37 and says he was prime accused; his lawyer told the court he was falsely implicated for political gains. Khera: Supreme Court granted interim bail and issued notice to Assam and UP Police to club FIRs; Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma said Khera had tendered an unconditional apology and the police would pursue the matter. Rane: the magistrate refused police custody and granted bail on Rs 15,000 surety; a court later discharged him; his lawyers argued no s.41A notice had been issued. | Congress leaders including Jairam Ramesh called the Khera arrest arbitrary; Naidu's lawyer denied the allegations; Rane said he repeated what the chief minister had said of others. Responses of the state governments to the characterisation were not located beyond those noted. | [21]: Andhra ex-CM Naidu arrested in skill development case (Tribune; Khera and Rane arrests seen in search results via Scroll and Udayavani, not opened) |
Who says what, paraphrased with attribution. Every holder gets a card of the same size and the same fields.
ED does not distinguish cases on political affiliation; it acts on credible evidence and is subject to judicial review. The rise in searches reflects clearing pending cases, complex multi-accused cases, better financial intelligence and better interagency and international cooperation.
Source [6]: ED raids rose 27 times in 2014-2022 vs 2004-14: government in Rajya Sabha (reply of 26 July 2022)Before 2014 the law was largely ineffective with fewer than 200 cases a year, mostly drug-related; 5,113 new PMLA investigations began from 2014 to 2024; conviction rate is 93.6% of decided cases; long-pending probes may fail to create deterrence and attract criticism.
Source [11]: PMLA action picked momentum after 2014; conviction rate over 93 pc: ED Director (1 May 2025)The number of politicians investigated rose sharply after 2014 and about 95 per cent were from the opposition, which the petitioners cited as arbitrary use of ED and CBI.
Source [20]: 14 opposition parties move Supreme Court against arbitrary use of ED, CBI; hearing on April 5 (seen in search results, not opened)ED officers are not police officers; the ECIR is an internal document; s.19, s.24 and the 2018 form of s.45 are valid; summons statements under s.50 are not barred by Article 20(3).
Source [1]: Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 27 July 2022 (opened; paragraph 187 conclusions read)Written grounds of arrest must be furnished as a matter of course; non-cooperation with a s.50 summons alone does not justify arrest; remand cannot cure an unlawful arrest.
Source [2]: Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, 3 October 2023 (opened via Indian Kanoon; para 35 read)Right to speedy trial; where delay is coupled with long incarceration, the right to bail has to be read into s.45; bail is not to be withheld as punishment.
Source [16]: Delhi excise policy: Supreme Court grants bail to Manish Sisodia in ED and CBI cases (seen in search results, not opened)| Financial year | PMLA cases registered |
|---|---|
| 2012-13 | 221 |
| 2013-14 | 209 |
| 2014-15 | 178 |
| 2015-16 | 111 |
| 2016-17 | 200 |
| 2017-18 | 148 |
| 2018-19 | 195 |
| 2019-20 | 562 |
| 2020-21 | 981 |
| 2021-22 | 1180 |
| Financial year | Cases registered | Convictions (cases / accused) |
|---|---|---|
| 2021-22 | 1116 | 3 / 4 |
| 2022-23 | 953 | 9 / 24 |
| 2023-24 | 698 | 13 / 19 |
| 2024-25 | 775 | 9 / 38 |
| 2025-26 | 1080 | 9 / 19 |
| Total | 4622 | 43 / 104 |
| Measure | 2004-05 to 2013-14 | 2014-15 to 2021-22 |
|---|---|---|
| Searches | 112 | 3010 |
| Proceeds of crime attached (Rs crore) | 5,346.16 | about 99,356 |
| Prosecution complaints | 104 | 888 |
| Convictions | None | 23 accused persons or entities |
| Source and date | Period | Cases registered | Convictions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lok Sabha reply 25 Jul 2022 | to 31 Mar 2022 | 5422 | 23 |
| Lok Sabha reply 6 Aug 2024 | 2014-2024 | 5297 | 40 (3 acquittals) |
| ED Director, 1 May 2025 | decided cases | n/a | 93.6% of 47 decided cases |
| Lok Sabha reply Dec 2025 | about 11 yrs 7 months | 6312 | 120 |
| Rajya Sabha reply Aug 2026 | FY2021-22 to FY2025-26 | 4622 | 43 cases / 104 accused |
| Year | ECIRs against politicians |
|---|---|
| 2019 | 15 |
| 2020 | 28 |
| 2021 | 26 |
| 2022 | 34 |
| 2023 | 26 |
| 2024 (to 31 July) | 3 |
| Total | 132 |
| Period | Politicians probed | From opposition | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2004-2014 (CBI, UPA) | 72 | 43 | about 60% |
| 2014-2022 (CBI, NDA) | 124 | 118 | about 95% |
Numbers in square brackets refer to this list. Types: primary, official data and court sources are weighed above media and academic ones.
Facts as of . Last reviewed .Report an error.
Printed from https://indiareview.pages.dev/dossiers/enforcement-directorate/. Facts as of 12 Oct 2026; check the sources for later developments.