Actor Jacqueline Fernandez has approached a Delhi court seeking to become an “approver” in the money laundering case linked to alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar. The court has issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED), raising important legal questions about how Indian law treats an accused who turns witness.
THE CASE
The ED has alleged that Sukesh orchestrated a large-scale extortion racket and used the proceeds to fund a lavish lifestyle, including expensive gifts to associates. Jacqueline has been named as an accused under anti-money laundering laws, allegedly for accepting cash, expensive presents and jewellery from Sukesh. The actor has so far repeatedly denied knowing that the funds were illicit, even going up to the Supreme Court with a plea to quash the case against herself.
Her move to seek approver status now marks a significant shift—from maintaining innocence to potentially assisting the prosecution.
WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?
The concept of an “approver” is governed by Sections 306 to 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC):
- Section 306 allows a Magistrate to tender pardon in exchange for a “full and true disclosure”
- Section 307 empowers the trial court to grant pardon
- Section 308 provides for prosecution if the approver fails to comply with conditions
These provisions are retained under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), under corresponding Sections 343–345.
A crucial requirement is that the approver must implicate themselves as well as others. As senior advocate Rebecca M John explains, “Pardon is predicated on the fact that you confess to your own role and the active participation of others—otherwise, there is no question of pardon.”
WHY THE LAW PERMITS APPROVERS
Complex conspiracies—especially financial crimes—are difficult to prove through documents alone. Insider testimony can help investigators uncover hidden links.
But this tool comes with inherent risks. As senior advocate Satish Tamta puts it, an approver is often seen as a “backstabber” or a “bad friend”—a participant who turns against co-accused to secure their own freedom. That perception shapes how courts assess credibility.
Senior advocate Rebecca M John says that the most important question is that the approver must give both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence – meaning they have to admit to their own guilt in the crime and then give details about the role of other accused persons. “The investigation agency must believe that you are a less important accused than the others who they are trying to implicate There have been cases where approver evidence was questioned because it did not disclose full details of their own role,” says John.
A ‘DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD’: JUDICIAL APPROACH
Courts have consistently treated approver testimony with caution.
In Sarwan Singh v State of Punjab, the Supreme Court of India laid down a “double test”: the approver must be reliable, and their testimony must be corroborated in material particulars. The Court also emphasised safeguards in recording confessions, including ensuring the accused is free from police influence and given time to reflect.
This was reaffirmed in State (Delhi Administration) v Jagjit Singh, where the Court stressed independent verification of key aspects of the testimony.
Similarly, in Ravinder Singh v State of Haryana, the Court warned that an approver, being a participant, may have incentives to shift blame.
The Delhi High Court has echoed this caution, particularly in economic offences.
As Senior Advocate Rebecca M John told India today, “Usually, in most cases, you get an approver when you don’t have enough corroborative evidence the agency believes this person is less important and can help establish the larger conspiracy.”
LESSONS FROM THE DELHI EXCISE POLICY CASE
The limits of such testimony have been evident in the Delhi Excise Policy Case.
In that case, individuals were granted pardons, and their statements became central to the prosecution’s narrative. However, courts later expressed reservations where corroborative evidence was weak.
Rebecca John described it as a “classic case where approver statements were made the basis for the charges,” highlighting the risks of over-reliance.
HOW AN ACCUSED BECOMES AN APPROVER
The process typically involves:
Approvers are often kept in judicial custody till the completion of the trial, to prevent influence.
As Senior Advocate Satish Tamta explains, “The evidence of an approver is not looked at very well. It doesn’t always inspire confidence because the person has bargained for their freedom.”
THE COMPLEXITY IN JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ’S PLEA
Jacqueline’s application presents several legal challenges:
- Self-incrimination vs. innocence: Becoming an approver may require admitting involvement
- Timing: Late-stage applications can appear strategic
- ED’s stance: The agency’s response will be crucial
Given that she has already given statements to the ED, investigators will assess whether her testimony adds substantive value.
THE LARGER LEGAL QUESTION
The law on approvers reflects a delicate balance—between uncovering truth and guarding against unreliable testimony.
It allows the system to break conspiracies, but builds in safeguards: corroboration, judicial scrutiny, and the risk of prosecution if the approver is untruthful.
WHAT LIES AHEAD
The Delhi court must now decide whether Jacqueline’s proposed testimony meets the threshold of “full and true disclosure” and whether granting a pardon serves justice.
If accepted, she could become a key witness against Sukesh. If rejected, she remains an accused.
Either way, the case highlights a central tension in criminal law: sometimes the truth comes from those involved in the crime—but their words must always be treated with caution.
– Ends
