A Delhi court has granted the Enforcement Directorate the 13-day remand of Jawad Ahmad Siddiqui, the Chairman and Chancellor of Al-Falah University, Faridabad, in a money laundering case linked to alleged fraudulent accreditation claims.
The order was passed by Additional Sessions Judge Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan at the Saket District Court late on Tuesday night.
The ED had sought a 14-day custodial remand, arguing that Siddiqui was central to a scheme in which Al-Falah University and its affiliated institutions allegedly generated “proceeds of crime” amounting to approximately Rs 415.10 crore.
This sum, according to the agency, represents fees collected from students based on false claims of NAAC accreditation and UGC recognition.
The case stems from two FIRs registered by the Delhi Police Crime Branch on November 13. According to the FIR, the university is accused of allegedly making false claim of NAAC accreditation for its colleges on its website and using expired accreditation grades to mislead students.
The University fraudulently asserted that it was recognised under Section 12(B) of the UGC Act, to make it eligible for grants. The UGC issed a clarification that the university had never applied for such status.
The ED contended that these “deceptive practices” were used to “dishonestly induce” students and parents to pay fees, thereby generating massive proceeds of crime. Financial analysis of Income Tax Returns (ITRs) from 2014-15 to 2024-25 showed educational revenues skyrocketing, with a total of Rs 415.10 crores declared as “Receipts from main object” or “Educational Revenue” during the years the institutes were not accredited.
The ED’s remand application alleged that Siddiqui, as the controlling mind of the Al-Falah Charitable Trust, which runs the university, was instrumental in this scheme. The agency cited statements from officials, including the Chief Financial Officer, who stated that all major financial decisions were ultimately approved by Siddiqui.
The prosecution argued that custodial interrogation was essential to trace the full trail of the proceeds of crime, believed to be larger than the identified Rs 415 crore, prevent Siddiqui from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses within the institution, uncover the roles of other family members and associated entities in the alleged money-laundering chain, and mitigate the risk of his absconding, given his financial resources and family connections abroad.
Opposing the ED’s plea, Siddiqui’s counsel argued that his client had been “falsely implicated.” The defence contended that the two predicate FIRs, which form the basis of the money laundering case, were themselves “false and fabricated.” They asserted that Siddiqui was ready to cooperate with the investigation and that a 14-day custody was unnecessary, suggesting that if custody must be granted, it should be limited to 7 days.
After hearing both sides and examining the case records, the court acknowledged that the mandatory legal procedures for arrest under the PMLA had been followed. Weighing the “gravity of the offence” and noting that the investigation was at a “nascent stage,” the judge found merit in the ED’s request for custodial interrogation. However, instead of the requested 14 days, the court granted 13 days of ED custody, directing that Siddiqui be produced before the court on December 1.
