Should statements recorded by the ED under Section 50 of PMLA be admissible when confessions to police are not? Analyse.

Section 50 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 [2] lets Enforcement Directorate (ED) officers summon any person, and that person must attend and state the truth. The Supreme Court has held that statements recorded under it are admissible in evidence [1]. Confessions made to police, however, are barred by Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023 [3]. This difference rests on sound law, but it needs procedural safeguards.

Legal basis for the difference

• ED officers are not "police": courts treat a Section 50 inquiry as a fact-finding exercise into proceeds of crime, not a police investigation [1].
• Rohit Tandon (3-judge bench) held Section 50 statements admissible. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary upheld the summons power itself [1].
• Abhishek Banerjee v. ED (2024): a summons is not "testimonial compulsion", so Article 20(3) cannot be claimed at that stage. Section 50 also overrides the general CrPC summons provisions [1].

Case for admissibility

• Nature of the crime: laundering is layered and paper-heavy. Statements help trace money across companies and accounts.
• Built-in accountability: the person summoned is legally bound to tell the truth, and each default carries a penalty of ₹500–₹10,000 [1].
• Corroboration: a statement is only one piece of evidence. Trial courts still weigh it against the documents.

Case against admissibility

• Same risk of coercion: BSA Section 23 exists because custodial pressure can produce false confessions [3]. The ED questioning room carries that same risk, but without the protection.
• Three rules combine against the person: attendance is compulsory, there is no Article 20(3) shield, and the statement can be used later. All of this happens before any formal charge.
• Unclear status: the summons does not say whether the person is a witness or an accused.
• Fear of misuse: the ED recently pasted a summons outside the Kerala Leader of the Opposition's residence [4]. This revived concerns that the power is used selectively against political opponents.

Way forward

• Video-record all Section 50 questioning and allow a lawyer to be present within sight.
• State witness or suspect status in Form V of the PMLA Rules, 2005 [1].
• Make independent corroboration mandatory before a statement can support a conviction.

On balance, admissibility can be defended because money laundering is complex and the person summoned is legally bound to tell the truth. However, it is fair only if the safeguards match the power. Since the Supreme Court has settled the law, Parliament should add these safeguards to PMLA. That would combine effective anti-money-laundering enforcement with the Article 21 guarantee of fair procedure.