"Abuse of process of law" by investigating agencies weakens the rule of law. Examine the role of constitutional courts in checking it.

Abuse of process means using criminal law to harass someone rather than to prosecute a crime. Recently, the Delhi High Court called the continuation of the FIR against NewsClick "a gross abuse of the process of law" and closed the linked ED case [1]. When agencies misuse the process, constitutional courts become the main defence of the rule of law.

How abuse of process weakens the rule of law

• Process becomes punishment: Searches, attachment of property and arrest all happen before any verdict. Long pending cases punish people without a trial.
• Civil disputes become criminal cases: An alleged breach of FDI rules was routed through a police FIR into money-laundering law [1].
• Constitutional harm: It violates equality before law (Art. 14) and the right to fair procedure (Art. 21). When used against the press, it discourages free speech under Art. 19(1)(a).

Role of constitutional courts

• Quashing power: High Courts can quash vexatious FIRs under Art. 226 and S.528 BNSS (earlier S.482 CrPC), as the Delhi HC did with NewsClick [1].
• Predicate-offence check: In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (2022), the SC held that a PMLA case cannot continue once the scheduled offence is quashed or ends in discharge or acquittal [2]. A scheduled offence must exist before there can be any "proceeds of crime" [3].
• Arrest safeguards: Prabir Purkayastha (2024) made written grounds of arrest mandatory under Art. 22(1), which made the editor's UAPA arrest invalid [4]. If reasons to believe are not recorded in writing, a PMLA arrest is illegal [5].
• Scrutiny of agency appeals: The SC Bench said the ED's appeal in the NewsClick case "did not inspire confidence" [1].

Limits of judicial checks

• Reactive and slow: Relief often comes only after years of litigation, when the harm is already done.
• Deference to agencies: Vijay Madanlal upheld the strict twin bail conditions and ruled that the ECIR need not be given to the accused [2]. The SC also holds that money laundering extends beyond the scheduled offence [6], which leaves agencies wide discretion.
• Unequal access: Mainly well-resourced litigants can reach the higher courts.

Constitutional courts have turned procedural rules into real limits on agency excess: dependence on the predicate offence, written grounds of arrest, and the quashing power. Lasting change also needs institutional reform. That means time-bound trials, using civil FEMA adjudication for regulatory breaches, publishing case outcomes, and accountability for malicious prosecution. Only then will Articles 14 and 21 bind the investigator as firmly as the accused.