Traditional policing and even the Income Tax Department often lack the expertise or legal mandate to tackle sophisticated financial networks. The ED, with powers to attach properties, summon individuals, and conduct detailed financial investigations, fills this gap. Its role in exposing multi-crore scams, shell company frauds, and cross-border laundering is undeniable. Cases such as the Rs 3,700 crore Punjab National Bank scam and the Saradha chit fund scandal illustrate that without agencies like the ED, accountability in financial crimes would be difficult to achieve.

The ED derives its powers from statutes like the PMLA, which allows it to attach properties, summon persons, and even pursue trial in special courts. Section 5 of the PMLA, for example, empowers the ED to provisionally attach properties believed to be proceeds of crime, while Sections 50 and 53 allow for detailed investigations and prosecution. Supporters claim these powers are necessary deterrents, especially in a country where financial crimes often involve political connections and cross-jurisdictional complexities. In principle, these tools are designed to ensure that white-collar criminals cannot escape justice while ordinary citizens abide by the law.

However, critics argue that these very powers have often been misused, eroding public trust in the agency. Allegations of selective targeting, prolonged custody without charge, and high-profile arrests of political opponents have raised concerns about the ED being used as a tool for intimidation rather than justice. The Supreme Court, in recent cases like Prakash Singh v. Union of India, has emphasised the need for checks and balances in preventive detention and coercive powers. Civil society and legal experts contend that while tackling economic crimes is essential, such power must be exercised transparently, with adequate judicial oversight, to prevent abuse.

Another concern relates to the burden on the accused during investigations. Under the PMLA, once a person is named as an “accused,” the attached property cannot be sold or transferred, often resulting in financial strangulation even before the trial begins. Critics say this inversion of the principle of presumption of innocence can have severe social and economic consequences, especially for small business owners who may be falsely implicated due to administrative errors or politically motivated complaints.

The debate surrounding the ED also touches on democratic accountability. In a vibrant democracy, agencies with coercive powers must be insulated from political interference. However, frequent perception of ED actions aligning with ruling party interests has intensified public scepticism. Legal reforms, greater transparency, and mandatory time-bound investigations could be a way forward to ensure that the ED remains a tool of justice rather than oppression.

Ultimately, the ED occupies a delicate space in India’s legal ecosystem. Its powers are essential to combat complex financial crimes and uphold economic integrity. Yet, without robust safeguards and impartial application, the same powers risk becoming instruments of fear and political leverage. The challenge lies in striking a balance: empowering the ED to perform its mandate efficiently while protecting citizens from arbitrary or selective enforcement.

The nation must insist on both accountability and effectiveness. Only then can the ED truly serve its original purpose — protecting India’s financial system — without eroding the civil liberties that form the foundation of a democratic society.