Digression From Constitutionalism In The Case Of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary V. Union Of India

Siddh Sanghavi, National Law University Odisha (NLUO)

ABSTRACT

This article delves into the powers of the Enforcement Directorate with respect to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. This article shows how the Supreme Court erred in its judgement in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary V. Union of India and how the judgement of the Supreme Court is a digression from the principles of the constitution.

Introduction

In its most basic form, constitutionalism refers to limitations on or constraints on the government. Therefore, constitutionalism is basically the opposite of arbitrary power. According to the principle of constitutionalism the government's legitimacy and authority depended on conforming to legal restrictions on its power.

In the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others V. The Union of India the Supreme Court deviated from the principles of the constitution and allowed for the arbitrary use of power by the Enforcement Directorate (hereafter referred to as ED) under the provisions of the “Prevention of Money Laundering Act” (Hereafter referred to as PMLA). The judgement was an example of digression from constitutionalism and how the Supreme Court failed to put a stop to the arbitrary use of power by the state through the Enforcement Directorate and how it leaves scope for the arbitrary application of the law.