In a quietly tense courtroom on Monday morning, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by 53-year-old Canadian citizen Poonam Gahllot, who sought exemption from personally appearing before the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a FEMA investigation. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, after briefly recapping the law and the complex factual trail, held that Gahllot must comply with ED summons and cannot insist that her statement be recorded at home. The ruling came after weeks of arguments marked by citations, counter-citations, and occasional sharp exchanges from both sides.
Background
The case originated from ED summons issued in late 2018 under Section 37 of FEMA, which allows the agency to collect documents and statements during inquiries. Gahllot argued that the summons violated Section 160 of the CrPC, a provision that protects women from being compelled to appear at police stations. Her counsel said ED officials were ignoring medical difficulties in her family and even overlooked her earlier cooperation, including handing over all documents requested.
Read also: Assam High Court Flags Gaps in Police Recruitment Policy for Transgender Applicants, Seeks Clarity
The petitioner also highlighted a dramatic incident from October 2018 involving alleged heavy-handed action by Income Tax officials at a Vasant Vihar residence, where her sons were staying. According to her counsel, the officials “virtually ransacked the premises,” a claim that appeared to strike an emotional chord in the room when mentioned.
Despite these allegations, ED opposed the plea, arguing that FEMA investigations are entirely different from criminal inquiries, and that the CrPC provisions invoked by Gahllot simply do not apply.
Read also: Supreme Court Flags Serious Concerns Over Police Conduct in Madhya Pradesh Case, Seeks Affidavits
Court’s Observations
Justice Krishna went step-by-step through the structure of FEMA, the Income Tax Act, and relevant case law to explain why Gahllot’s argument could not stand.
At one point, the judge remarked, “Section 37 FEMA blends powers of discovery and attendance with search and seizure, but for summons-civil procedure applies, not criminal procedure.” The bench observed, “The exemption under Section 160 CrPC cannot be imported into FEMA, which is a civil-regulatory mechanism.”
The court noted that FEMA is no longer a criminal statute like the old FERA. There is no concept of “offence” in FEMA-only penalties. ED’s power to summon witnesses is therefore comparable to the power under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, governed by the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), not the CrPC.
Read also: Gujarat High Court Rejects State’s Appeal, Says Temple-Visit Quarrel Cannot Be Treated as Cruelty
The judge also dismissed the reliance on the Madras High Court’s Nalini Chidambaram ruling, observing that the case fell under PMLA, which deals with criminal prosecution-unlike FEMA.
At another stage, the court noted that Gahllot had already furnished documents and was now resisting only the requirement of personal presence. “Insistence on appearing before the authority cannot be said to violate any fundamental right when the law expressly allows such inquiry,” the court said.
Decision
After summarising the statutory scheme and precedents, the court firmly concluded that Gahllot had no legal ground to refuse physical appearance before the ED.
Read also: Madras High Court Directs Temple to Light Karthigai Deepam at Thirupparankundram Deepathoon
The judgment ends succinctly:
“In light of the law discussed above, this Court finds no merit in the Writ Petition… The Writ Petition is dismissed.”
No further directions were issued.
Case Title: Smt. Poonam Gahllot vs. Directorate of Enforcement
Case Number: W.P. (CRL) 3894/2018
Case Type: Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 (FEMA Summons Challenge)
Decision Date: 01 December 2025