SC defers hearing on PMLA review petition

A bench led by Justice Surya Kant adjourned the matter on the request of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. However, the court said it becomes embarrassing when matters are not being heard.

In an earlier hearing, the Supreme Court recalled that it had identified two issues that needed 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 and had previously agreed to hear in an open court hearing on the review petition against the judgement pertaining to upholding various provisions of the PMLA. One of the review pleas was filed by Congress MP Karti Chidambaram.

On July 27, 2022, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of various provisions of the PMLA, which empower the Directorate of Enforcement to make arrests, conduct searches and seizures and attach proceeds of crime.

The court had also held that the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) cannot be equated with the 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 ECIR.

However, the Centre justified the constitutional validity of the provisions of PMLA and apprised the court that around 4,700 cases were being investigated by the ED.

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

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