Hyderabad: In a ruling that underscores the balance between protecting individual liberty and safeguarding society, Telangana high court has held that while courts must remain vigilant to uphold citizens’ rights, they must be equally cautious that extraordinary writ jurisdiction is not misused to derail investigations in cases with grave social consequences.A division bench of Justices P Sam Koshy and Narsing Rao Nandikonda delivered the order while dismissing a writ petition filed by Pachipala Namratha of Hyderabad-based Universal Srushti Fertility Centre. She had sought to overturn her arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in a Prevention of Money Laundering Act case linked to an alleged illegal surrogacy and child selling racket. “While we are conscious that personal liberty is a prized constitutional value, PMLA’s unique legal structure is specifically designed to tackle serious financial crimes,” the bench observed in its April 21 ruling. The judges clarified that a writ petition challenging arrest cannot serve as a “surrogate bail hearing” or a forum to debate evidence. Judicial oversight, they said, must be confined to examining the legality and fairness of the arrest process, leaving questions of evidence strength to the trial court. Namratha had sought to set aside the Feb arrest order and subsequent remand decisions of the special sessions court, demanding immediate release from custody. Her counsel alleged violations of constitutional safeguards, claiming ED officials bypassed procedures and infringed fundamental rights. Legally untenableCountering this, ED’s senior standing counsel Dominic Fernandes urged dismissal of the petition, arguing it was legally untenable. He accused the petitioner of selectively quoting precedents and suppressing facts to mislead the court. Fernandes pointed to contradictions in her claims, noting she cited detailed investigation records while simultaneously alleging lack of information. “Because the case involves conflicting versions of events and disputed facts, these matters require a trial court’s evidence review rather than an extraordinary writ,” he argued, while maintaining the petition was a premature attempt to argue the case’s merits. The bench, after examining submissions and records, expressed grave concern over illegal surrogacy and child trafficking. Desperate couples facing fertility issues often invested their trust and savings into clinics, only to be exploited through baby substitution and falsified records, the bench said, while recording that such deception irreparably harmed a child’s identity, lineage, and legal standing. Emphasising the lasting trauma and stigma, the court refused to stay proceedings against Namratha. However, it left open her right to approach the special court to pursue remedies available under law.
