Karnataka High Court Clarifies the Scope of ‘No Coercive Steps’ Orders
The Karnataka High Court has elucidated that when a court order instructs an investigating agency to refrain from taking coercive measures against an accused, it primarily safeguards the individual’s liberty by preventing arrest. However, this does not hinder the continuation of the investigation or related legal processes. This clarification comes from the case of Pavitra Ramanujam v Directorate of Enforcement, where Justice M Nagaprasanna addressed the matter.
The issue arose from a plea challenging a property attachment order against a company director involved in a money laundering case. The petitioner argued that since the court had previously directed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) not to take coercive actions against her, the attachment order was void. Nevertheless, Justice Nagaprasanna emphasized that the ‘no coercive steps’ order does not inhibit the ED from advancing its investigation or issuing an attachment order.
The court explained, “An order restraining the investigating agency from taking coercive steps is essentially a judicial shield erected to preserve the personal liberty of the individual under investigation. Such a direction, in its ordinary legal connotation, proscribes the investigating agency from resorting to arrest or other measures directly impinging upon the person’s liberty. It does not, however, denude the statutory authority of its power to continue the investigation, collect evidence, file a prosecution complaint (by the Enforcement Directorate), or invoke such other statutory remedies as the enactment itself contemplates.”
Justice Nagaprasanna further noted the distinction between ‘no coercive steps’ and ‘no precipitative steps’. The former implies protection from arrest, while the latter would halt the investigation entirely. The case involved a company director accused of embezzling ₹7.9 crores and being investigated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
Initially, the petitioner had contested a summons issued by the ED, leading to a court order in March that safeguarded her from coercive actions, conditional on her cooperation with the investigation. Subsequently, when a provisional attachment order was issued, she filed a petition questioning its validity under the protection order. The court clarified that its prior directive only shielded her from arrest and not from other investigative actions.
More Read
On July 7, the court reiterated that its order was limited to protecting personal liberty and did not prevent the issuance of an attachment order. The court highlighted that the petitioner still has the recourse to challenge the attachment order before an adjudicatory authority under the PMLA. Should she not find relief there, she retains the right to return to the High Court.
“The doors of judicial review are never irrevocably closed; they merely await the ripening of the statutory process. The petitioner would, therefore, be at liberty to seek appropriate relief before this Court at the appropriate stage, if the circumstances so warrant,” the court concluded.
Advocates Gautham Bharadwaj and Ankith Jain represented the petitioner, while counsel Madhu N Rao appeared for the ED.
