§ Section 19, in substance

(1) If the Director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director or any other officer authorised by the Central Government has, on the basis of material in his possession, reason to believe, the reason for such belief to be recorded in writing, that any person has been guilty of an offence punishable under the Act, he may arrest such person and shall, as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds for such arrest.

(2) Immediately after arrest, the officer forwards a copy of the order and the material in his possession to the Adjudicating Authority in a sealed envelope.

(3) Every person arrested shall, within twenty-four hours, be taken to the Special Court, or a Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate having jurisdiction, excluding journey time.

Competent officer

Director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director, or an officer authorised by the Central Government

Material in possession

The belief must rest on material actually in the officer's possession, not speculation

Reason to believe the person is GUILTY

A higher threshold than the reasonable suspicion that permits a police arrest; the officer must believe guilt, not merely suspect involvement

Reasons recorded in writing

Before the arrest, so that the court can test them

Not mere non-cooperation

Evasive replies or failure to confess are not in themselves grounds for arrest: Pankaj Bansal (2023)

📖 Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244, decided 3 October 2023

The Supreme Court held that the grounds of arrest must be furnished to the arrested person in writing, as a matter of course and without exception, to give real effect to Article 22(1) and Section 19, and so that the person can seek legal advice and challenge the arrest. It also observed that the ED must act with fairness and that a person's failure to respond to summons in the manner the ED expects is not by itself a ground to arrest.

📖 Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 INSC 1082, decided 15 December 2023

A Bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma held that Pankaj Bansal does not apply retrospectively, so arrests before 3 October 2023 without written grounds are not illegal on that account. It further held that if the arrested person is informed of the grounds orally at the time of arrest and furnished written grounds as soon as may be, and within twenty-four hours, that is sufficient compliance with Section 19 and Article 22(1).

📖 Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 1288, decided 6 November 2025

A Bench of Chief Justice B. R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih held that the constitutional mandate of informing the grounds of arrest applies to all offences under all statutes; the grounds must be communicated in writing, in a language the arrestee understands; and where that is not possible at or soon after arrest, they may be given orally first, but must be furnished in writing within a reasonable time and at least two hours before production for remand. Failure renders the arrest and remand illegal.

Note: the relationship between this ruling and Ram Kishor Arora's twenty-four-hour rule for PMLA arrests has been the subject of later discussion, including suggestions of a larger-Bench reference; check the current position.

§ After the arrest

• The twenty-four-hour rule. Production before the Special Court or a Magistrate within twenty-four hours, excluding journey time, under Section 19(3) and Article 22(2).

• Judicial scrutiny. The remand court must examine whether Section 19 was complied with: whether there was material, whether the reasons to believe were recorded, and whether the grounds were furnished as required.

• Remand. Custody is governed by the BNSS provisions on remand, corresponding to Section 167 of the old Code. In V. Senthil Balaji v. State (2023), the Supreme Court held that the ED may seek custody of an arrested person for interrogation.

• Testing the reason to believe. In Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024), the Supreme Court held that courts may examine the 'reasons to believe' on the material, including material favourable to the accused, and referred questions on the need and necessity of arrest to a larger Bench.

📖 Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement, Supreme Court, decided May 2024

The Supreme Court held that once the Special Court has taken cognizance of the complaint, the ED cannot arrest an accused who was not arrested during investigation by using Section 19. If such an accused appears pursuant to summons, he is not to be treated as in custody, and the Special Court may take a bond for appearance. If the ED wants custody for further investigation, it must apply to the Special Court, which may grant it only if satisfied, for reasons, that custodial interrogation is necessary.

Arrest after filing the complaint but before cognizance remains governed by Section 19, subject to its conditions and the scrutiny of the court.

Officer

ED officers specified; not police officers

Police officers

Threshold

Reason to believe the person is GUILTY, on material

Reasonable suspicion or credible information, with the necessity tests in the BNSS

Recording

Reasons recorded in writing before arrest

Reasons recorded for arrest or non-arrest in specified cases

Oversight

Order and material to the Adjudicating Authority, sealed

Arrest memo; intimation to family; production

Grounds

In writing (Pankaj Bansal; Mihir Rajesh Shah)

In writing (Mihir Rajesh Shah); s. 47 BNSS

Production

Within 24 hours

Within 24 hours

Statements

s. 50 statements admissible

Statements to police inadmissible as confessions