The ED's case against Kejriwal is premised on the non-jurisdictional predicate offence of corruption, a theory of criminal proceeds previously rejected by the Supreme Court, and a discernible disconnection between proceeds generated and proceeds laundered.

The top court’s verdict is unjustified in the sense that it offers highly lacklustre reasoning in departing from the previous ‘immediate-furnishing-rule’, where the person about to get arrested was given in writing the grounds for their arrest.

The court's assertion that the Special Marriage Act, 1954 didn't exclude non-heterosexual marriages, attributing it to Parliament's lack of awareness during enactment, is a novel and dangerous constitutional doctrine, potentially legitimising regressive laws based on historical intellectual limitations.

Such a denial was achieved through the creation of three never-before-seen standards, which were specifically tailored to reach the conclusion of the non-existence of a right to marry.

The prevailing trend in case law interpreting the PMLA has been to bolster the ED’s investigative powers, based on an abstract fear of money laundering. The top court setting real estate baron Pankaj Bansal free marks a degree of departure.

The ED's power to obtain custody had to be navigated in light of the court's previous verdict in the 'Vijay Madanlal Choudhary' case, which denied the ED the status of the police to foreclose the application of the right against self-incrimination. It constituted the ED as an illegible entity, somewhere between the court and the police.