The Supreme Court announced on Thursday that it will decide in April if it should rethink its 2022 decision that supported the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) power to arrest and seize property under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
A panel of judges, Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, mentioned that the case was supposed to be reviewed by a larger group of three judges, but it was mistakenly assigned to them. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the government, agreed and suggested the case be postponed until late April or the first week of May.
Senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, who is representing the person challenging the decision, urged that the case should be heard quickly by the three-judge panel. Justice Surya Kant noted that he had asked for the case to be sent to the larger panel, and he was confused about why it came to the two-judge panel instead.
Justice Surya Kant promised to provide a specific date for the hearing but confirmed that it would not happen before the end of April. The Supreme Court is looking at several requests to re-examine the ruling from July 27, 2022. On that date, the court had allowed the ED to keep its powers for arrest and property seizure related to money laundering cases.
In August 2022, the court agreed to consider a request for a review of the July decision, noting that two issues—failing to provide an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and the reversal of the presumption of innocence—needed to be looked at again.
The Supreme Court recognized the global concern about money laundering as a serious threat to the financial system. In its ruling, the court also confirmed that agencies under the 2002 PMLA law are not the same as police and that they don’t have to provide an ECIR copy in every case. Instead, they only need to explain the reasons for the arrest at the time it happens.
The ruling came after more than 200 petitions were filed by various people and groups questioning different parts of the PMLA law, which some opposition leaders argue is misused by the government to target political opponents. The court also stated that Section 45 of the PMLA, which makes certain money-laundering offenses serious and hard to get bail for, was reasonable and fair.
Leave a Reply