The Karnataka High Court has ruled that an order directing an investigating agency to take "no coercive steps" against a person only protects that individual from arrest and does not prevent the agency from continuing its statutory investigation or initiating property attachment proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The court dismissed a writ petition filed by Pavitra Ramanujam challenging a provisional attachment order issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Background of the Case
Pavitra Ramanujam had approached the High Court seeking to quash a provisional attachment order dated March 28, 2026, issued by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with an ECIR arising from a predicate offence registered by the Koramangala Police. She argued that an earlier High Court order directing the ED not to take "coercive steps" against her also prevented the agency from attaching her properties.
The earlier order had required her to cooperate with the investigation while protecting her from coercive action during that process. After she appeared before the ED, the investigation continued, a prosecution complaint was filed, and the Adjudicating Authority initiated attachment proceedings.
Court's Observation
Justice M. Nagaprasanna held that the phrase "no coercive steps" has a limited legal meaning and cannot be stretched to suspend statutory proceedings under the PMLA.
The bench observed,
"A direction restraining coercive steps... protects liberty; it does not paralyse jurisdiction. It prevents arrest; it does not prohibit investigation."
The court explained that protection from coercive steps is aimed at safeguarding a person's personal liberty, particularly against arrest, but it does not take away the Enforcement Directorate's statutory powers to continue investigation, file a prosecution complaint or initiate attachment proceedings permitted by law.
The judgment also distinguished the expression "no coercive steps" from "no precipitative action." According to the court, an order restraining precipitative action has a much wider effect because it can suspend further statutory proceedings, whereas an order against coercive steps does not.
Court's Decision
Finding no merit in the challenge, the High Court held that the provisional attachment order could not be treated as a violation of its earlier direction.
The bench directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy before the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA by raising all available objections there. It further observed that if the attachment is ultimately confirmed, the petitioner would remain free to challenge the proceedings before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.
Case Details
Case Title: Pavitra Ramanujam v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 14309 of 2026 (GM-RES)
Judge: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
Decision Date: July 7, 2026
