Supreme Court to hear review plea against PMLA judgment today
The Supreme Court will take up a review of its July 27 judgment upholding the law in an unusual open-court hearing today. A three-judge Bench comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, and C T Ravikumar had ruled on a batch of over 240 petitions challenging the special law against money laundering.
FollowThe Supreme Court has agreed to hear a review plea against the judgment pertaining to upholding various provisions of the Prevention of Monay Laundering Act (PMLA) that had backed ED powers under the Act on Thursday. A three-judge bench of the apex court comprising CJI NV Ramana and Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar listed the matter and also allowed an open court hearing of the petition.
The Supreme Court declared that Section 5 of the Act, which permits the seizure of property of persons implicated in the money laundering case, is "constitutionally lawful," upholding the legitimacy of certain of the PMLA's provisions.
The Supreme Court had also ruled that providing an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) to the individual in question in every case was "not" required. A police FIR is the ECIR, which is used by the ED. Additionally, the bench had ruled that the ED only needed to provide the reason for the arrest at the time of the arrest.
Also Read |Â ED, CBI, and IT are three 'jamaai' of BJP: RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav slams saffron party over raids
The top court dismissed the argument against the constitutionality of Section 19 of the PMLA Act of 2002, declaring that "the argument against the constitutionality of Section 19 of the 2002 Act is likewise rejected."Â
Additionally, it stated that when the arrested person is brought before the special court, it can review the relevant records provided by the ED. This will address the justification for the person's continuing imprisonment in relation to the accused money laundering offence, it said.
The apex court described the PMLA as a measure to combat the "scourge of money laundering" rather than a weapon to be used against dissenters and rival politicians.
Also Read |Â Army warns against unauthorised sale of outfits resembling combat uniforms in Kashmir
The judgment was based on an extensive challenge raised against the amendments introduced to the 2002 Act by way of a Finance Act in 2019. More than 240 petitions were submitted in opposition to the modifications, which the petitioners argued violated the constitution's mission, legal process, and individual liberties. Former ministers Mehbooba Mufti, Anil Deshmukh, and Karti Chidambaram were among the petitioners who asserted that the "procedure itself constituted the punishment."
