“ED Recovered Rs 23,000 Cr Laundered Money, Distributed It To Victims”: SG To SC

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Supreme Court on Thursday that the Enforcement Directorate has recovered approximately ₹23,000 crore in laundered money and returned it to victims of financial fraud.

The disclosure was made during an open court hearing before a special bench led by Ex- Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.

The bench was reviewing a batch of petitions seeking reconsideration of the apex court’s controversial May 2 verdict ordering liquidation of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd, which had overturned JSW Steel’s resolution plan for the debt-ridden company.

CJI-Led Bench Reopens BPSL Verdict

On July 31, the bench decided to recall the May 2 judgment and agreed to rehear the matter. During Thursday’s hearing, the ED’s investigation in the BPSL case was briefly mentioned by one of the lawyers.

“Here also ED is there,” Chief Justice Gavai noted in a lighter vein.

Responding to the remark, Mehta shared an important fact: “Let me tell a fact, which was never said in any court, and that is …ED has recovered ₹23,000 crore (laundered money) and given it to the victims.”

Mehta emphasized that the money recovered by the agency does not stay with the government but is returned to the people defrauded in financial scams. “It does not remain with the state exchequer,” he said.

This comment led the bench to raise questions about the conviction rate in money laundering cases.

“What is the conviction rate?” the CJI asked.

In reply, the Solicitor General acknowledged that conviction rates in criminal cases remain low, largely due to systemic issues within the country’s justice system.

To this, Chief Justice Gavai remarked pointedly, “Even if they are not convicted, you have been successful in sentencing them almost without a trial for years together.”

SG Defends ED’s Conduct Amid Growing Criticism

Defending the agency’s operations, Mehta recounted instances where massive cash seizures led to practical challenges. “In some of the cases involving politicians, where cash was found during raids, our machines stopped working due to the volume… We had to bring in new machines,” he said.

He also acknowledged the growing online criticism surrounding ED actions. “Some narratives are being built on YouTube when big politicians are caught,” Mehta said.

In response, the CJI clarified, “We do not decide matters on narratives. I don’t watch news channels. I read headlines in newspapers for just 10 to 15 minutes every morning.”

Mehta said he was fully aware that courts do not rely on social media discourse or external narratives while deciding cases.

ED Under Judicial Scrutiny

The ED has come under increasing scrutiny from various benches of the Supreme Court, particularly in politically sensitive cases. On July 21, the CJI-led bench in an unrelated case had remarked that the agency was “crossing all limits.”

That case dealt with the ED summoning two senior advocates for offering legal advice to clients under investigation—a move the court viewed as overreach.