The Supreme Court delivered a scathing rebuke to the Enforcement Directorate on Monday, accusing the agency of being weaponized for political purposes and warned against its misuse in legal proceedings. The harsh criticism came during hearings on two significant matters that highlighted the court's concerns about the ED's conduct.

Chief Justice BR Gavai expressed strong disapproval when the ED challenged a Karnataka High Court decision that had dismissed money laundering proceedings against BM Parvathi, the wife of Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, and state Urban Development Minister Byrathi Suresh. The case involved allegations of illegal land allotment by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA).

The Chief Justice pointedly questioned why the ED was pursuing an appeal when both the trial court and High Court had reached the same conclusion. He delivered a stern warning, stating that political battles should be fought among voters rather than through judicial proceedings, and cautioned the agency against forcing the court to make harsher statements about its conduct.

Justice Gavai referenced his experience with the ED in Maharashtra, suggesting a pattern of problematic behavior. When the Additional Solicitor General offered to withdraw the appeal, the court dismissed it outright, noting that the withdrawal request came too late to prevent critical observations.

The second matter involved the court's suo moto consideration of ED summons issued to senior lawyers for advice provided to their clients. Multiple legal associations, including the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and Supreme Court Bar Association, filed intervention applications expressing concern about the agency's actions.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh warned that the ED's approach was creating a "chilling effect" on the legal profession, drawing parallels to authoritarian practices in countries like Turkey and China where bar associations faced suppression. He urged the court to establish clear guidelines to protect legal practitioners.

Chief Justice Gavai agreed that summoning lawyers for privileged communications with clients was problematic, emphasizing that even incorrect legal advice falls under attorney-client privilege. The court announced its intention to appoint an amicus curiae to consolidate the various interventions and schedule hearings for the following week.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta attempted to defend the ED, arguing that there was a coordinated effort to create negative narratives against the agency. However, the Chief Justice firmly rejected this defense, pointing out that the court was witnessing repeated instances of the ED filing appeals even after well-reasoned High Court orders.

The Chief Justice made it clear that the court would not tolerate the use of judicial proceedings as political platforms, warning that continued misuse would force the court to make even harsher public criticisms of the Enforcement Directorate. He stressed that political conflicts should be resolved through democratic processes rather than legal manipulation.

The hearing also revealed specific incidents of ED overreach, including the summoning of senior advocate Arvind Datar while he was abroad, which reportedly caused him significant mental distress. The Solicitor General acknowledged that this particular summons was withdrawn within six hours after being brought to the attention of higher authorities.

The court's intervention signals growing judicial concern about the potential politicization of enforcement agencies and their impact on both democratic processes and legal professional standards. The scheduled follow-up hearings are expected to result in formal guidelines governing how investigative agencies interact with legal practitioners and their clients.