New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday (July 21) asked the Enforcement Directorate (ED) why it was being used for “political battles”.The top court made the remarks while refusing to entertain the ED’s appeal against the Karnataka high court quashing the summons against Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramiah’s wife B.M. Parvati along with state minister Byrathi Suresh in connection with alleged illegal allotment of sites by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA).“Mr. Raju, please don’t ask us to open our mouths. Otherwise, we will be forced to make some harsh comments about the ED. Unfortunately, I have some experience in Maharashtra. You don’t perpetuate this violence across the country now. Let the political battles be fought before the electorate. Why are you being used as a…?” Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai told additional solicitor general (ASG) S.V. Raju as a bench comprising CJI Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran was hearing the matter, reported LiveLaw.Thereafter, the court dismissed the matter.“We do not find any error in the reasoning adopted in the approach of the learned single judge. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we dismiss it. We should thank you ASG for saving some harsh comments,” said CJI Gavai.‘ED Not a Super Cop or a Loitering Munition to Attack at Will On Any Criminal Activity’: Madras HCMeanwhile, while hearing a separate case, the Madras high court has said that the ED can take action only upon the existence of a predicate offence and the agency cannot conduct investigations on its own.A bench of Justices MS Ramesh and V Lakshminarayanan reiterated the fact that ED is not a super cop for investigating anything and everything that came to its notice.The Madras high court has said that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) can take action only upon the existence of a predicate offence and the agency cannot conduct investigations on its own.A bench of Justices MS Ramesh and V Lakshminarayanan reiterated the fact that ED is not a super cop for investigating anything and everything that came to its notice.“The ED is not a super cop to investigate anything and everything which comes to its notice. There should be a “criminal activity” which attracts the schedule to PMLA, and on account of such criminal activity, there should have been “proceeds of crime”. It is only then the jurisdiction of ED commences,” said the court, reported LiveLaw.The court added that there must be criminal activity coming within the schedule of the Act along with the presence of proceeds of crime based on which the ED will have jurisdiction to start a probe.“The terminus a quo for the ED to commence its duties and exercise its powers is the existence of a predicate offence. Once there exists a predicate offence, and the ED starts investigation under the PMLA, and file a complaint, then it becomes a stand alone offence,” said the court.The court said that if the agency was allowed to conduct an investigation merely on coming to know about any activity, the ED would be conducting roving enquiry.“The essential ingredient for the ED to seize jurisdiction is the presence of a predicate offence. It is like a limpet mine attached to a ship. If there is no ship, the limpet cannot work. The ship is the predicate offence and “proceeds of crime”. The ED is not a loitering munition or drone to attack at will on any criminal activity,” said the court.The observations were made by the court while hearing a plea filed by RKM Powergen Private Limited, which has challenged the ED’s action of freezing its fixed deposits.The court added that as per Section 66(2) of the PMLA, if the ED comes across a violation of law during the course of the investigation, it cannot assume the role of an investigating agency and investigate those offences also.In June this year, Justice Ramesh had remarked that while courts often term the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) of 2002 as an “evolving legislation” which throws up new legal questions, but it is actually the “officials of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) who are evolving day by day by expanding their powers.”Justice Ramesh’s remarks came as he wondered which provision of the PMLA empowers the ED officials to seal a residential/business premises if it was found to be locked when the officials go over there for a search and seizure operation.Following the remarks, the ED had told the high court that it did not have the power to seal premises if the same was locked at the time of making a search as per Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.