The Karnataka High Court granted interim relief to Advocate Anil Gowda by staying the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering investigation allegedly linked to an online and offline betting racket involving Congress MLA KC Veerendra. The Court also restrained the ED from taking any coercive action against the advocate. Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum presided over the order.
The order holds that there is a prima facie case that until the Supreme Court delivers a final decision laying down authoritative guidelines regarding whether, and to what extent, the ED can invoke Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to summon a practising advocate, no coercive actions should be permitted. On that basis the Court stayed the summons dated 24 August 2025 issued to Gowda, and restrained the ED from using Section 50 of the PMLA against him or taking any coercive steps until the Supreme Court finally decides the related petition pending before it.
In his petition, Gowda challenged the ED‐initiated proceedings as void ab initio, contending that the agency had no jurisdiction, and that its actions were malafide and politically motivated, in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. He claimed the ED’s case depended on four First Information Reports over a 10-15 year period alleging betting and gambling under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, but that none of the FIRs involved the petitioner himself in any chargesheeted capacity. He further argued that betting is not a scheduled offence under PMLA, and that there are no “proceeds of crime” as defined under Section 2(1)(u) read with Section 3 of the PMLA, relying on the Supreme Court judgment Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2023).
The petitioner also asserted that he was being targeted not for conduct as a businessman, but in his capacity as advocate/legal consultant to KC Veerendra, and that legal advice provided by him should be protected. The ED, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, opposed the petition, arguing that Gowda was also a partner in several commercial entities connected to Veerendra’s enterprises, and that the summons were issued to him in that capacity—not purely for his legal practice.
The High Court found merit in the petitioner’s plea for interim protection, noting that any contrary posture would cause irreversible prejudice. Accordingly, the summons under Section 50 of PMLA were stayed and coercive action was restrained pending Supreme Court’s decision on whether such summons of advocates is permissible under law.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.