बेबाक · Editorial
Who Watches the Enforcers: A Bribery Arrest and a Five-Month Delay Test the ED's Standing
An alleged bribe inside the Enforcement Directorate and its belated appeal in the NewsClick case show that agencies holding others to account must meet the same standard.
Two Stories, One Agency
Two recent developments concern the Enforcement Directorate, the agency India relies on to pursue money laundering. In the first, the Central Bureau of Investigation laid a trap and arrested two ED officials in a Rs 5 lakh bribery case. One of the accused, Manoj Dwivedi, was allegedly caught red-handed demanding and accepting the money on behalf of an Enforcement Officer, in return for favouring the complainant's father in a case. In the second, the ED has moved the Supreme Court against a High Court order of May 29 that quashed its case against the news portal NewsClick and its founder. Taken together, they raise one question: who holds the enforcers to account?
The Core Tension
An enforcement agency's power rests on public trust that it acts without fear or favour. The bribery allegation strikes at that directly. If an officer's discretion in an active case can be bought for Rs 5 lakh, the people under investigation stop being citizens awaiting due process and become customers. The NewsClick appeal raises a related concern about procedure and timing. The directorate argues that the High Court quashed the case without examining the money laundering allegations. It also notes that the judgment came five months and 26 days after it was reserved, which it says ran contrary to the Supreme Court's standards. Yet the directorate itself filed its appeal almost five months after the order was pronounced.
The Case for Each Side
The strongest defence of the agency deserves a fair hearing. The bribery case came to light because another central agency, the CBI, acted on a complaint and set a trap. That suggests checks across the system can work. The charges are allegations, and the accused are entitled to the presumption of innocence. On NewsClick, the ED has a legitimate point. Long gaps between reserving and pronouncing judgment are a recognised problem, and a quashing order deserves scrutiny on its merits. The opposing view is just as serious. When a press organisation is the subject of a case, the state carries a heavier burden to show that its action is lawful and not punitive. An appeal filed after months of silence weakens the agency's claim of urgency.
What the Record Shows
The facts in the reporting are specific. In the bribery case, the amount was Rs 5 lakh, the alleged purpose was to favour the complainant's father in a case, and the CBI says it caught the accused red-handed in a trap. In the NewsClick case, the High Court ruled on May 29, and the ED's appeal came almost five months later. The directorate's own grounds include a complaint about a delay of nearly six months between the reserving and pronouncing of judgment. These facts do not establish guilt, and they do not decide the merits of the NewsClick case. Both remain contested and before the courts. They do, however, suggest a pattern worth naming: the agency's demands on others can run ahead of the standard it applies to itself.
The Verdict
This calls for reform, not outrage. A single bribery arrest does not condemn an institution, and one appeal does not prove bad faith. But the ED holds wide powers, so its integrity cannot be taken on trust. An agency that complains of a court's delay while taking almost five months to appeal has asked for a standard it must also meet. Where the target is a news organisation, delay and doubt are costly in their own right. They can chill reporting long before any court rules on the case. The rule of law applies to the official as fully as to the accused. The agency's credibility depends on showing that.
A Way Forward
Three measures would help. First, the CBI's bribery case should move on a defined timeline, and the ED should make public what internal review it has started of the Enforcement Officer's handling of the underlying case. The complainant's father deserves a fresh, untainted assessment. Second, the ED should explain the near five-month gap before its Supreme Court appeal, just as it has faulted the High Court for its own delay. Third, Parliament should consider requiring all central investigative agencies to report annually on complaints against their officers, the outcomes of those complaints, and how long they take to appeal adverse orders. Applying the same scrutiny to the enforcers is not hostility to enforcement. It is the condition for enforcement being trusted.
An agency that complains of a court's delay while taking almost five months to appeal has asked for a standard it must also meet.
What this editorial rests on
Drawn from our live multi-newsroom feed — read the reporting at source.
An editorial is the considered opinion of the Aad Tak desk, argued from the sourced reporting above and written under our published persona, बेबाक. We name institutions, not parties. If we are wrong, we will say so. How we work →