Supreme Court defers hearing review petition challenging PMLA provisions

A bench of justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan adjourned the matter for September 18. The matter was adjourned as one of the judges of the three-judge bench was not sitting today.

The court was hearing the review petition challenging of top court's judgement upholding the provision of PMLA.

In the last hearing, the Supreme Court had recollected that earlier it has identified two issues which need prima facie consideration. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who was arguing for the petitioner, maintained that judgement needs reconsideration.

The top court had said that it will give ample opportunity to each side to present their arguments and see the legal issues related to the matter.

Earlier, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the revaluation of judgement and said the PMLA is not a standalone offence and PMLA is prepared by the legislature in conformity with the directions issued by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).

The court had said before that the offence of money laundering is serious and the country cannot afford such an offence.

The court had previously agreed to hear in open court a hearing on the review petition against the judgement pertaining to upholding various provisions of the PMLA. One of the review pleas were filed by Congress MP Karti Chidambaram.

On July 27 2022, the supreme court upheld the validity of various provisions of the PMLA which empowers Directorate of Enforcement for making arrests, conducting search and seizures and attaching proceeds of crime.

The court had also held that that Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) cannot be equated with First Information Report (FIR) and ED officers are not police officers.

On March 15 2022, the top court had reserved its order on a batch of petitions challenging certain provisions of the PMLA. Prominent names like Karti Chidambaram and former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti were among the petitioners in the case.

Their petitions raised multiple issues including the absence of a procedure to commence an investigation and summoning, while the accused was not made aware of the contents of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR).

However, the Centre had justified the constitutional validity of the provisions of PMLA.

Centre had apprised the court that around 4,700 cases are being investigated by the Directorate of Enforcement.

Centre said that PMLA is not a conventional penal statute but is a statute which is aimed at necessarily preventing money laundering, regulating certain activities relatable to money laundering, aims at confiscating the "proceeds of crime" and the property derived therefrom. It also requires offenders to be punished by the competent court after filing of a complaint.

Centre submitted that as a signatory to the treaties and an important participant in the international process and the fight against money-laundering, is bound legally and morally, to adopt the global best practices and respond to the changing needs of the times. (ANI)