Today(on 29th April), Delhi High Court dismisses PIL seeking clarity on PMLA’s Section 66, allowing ED to share information with other agencies. Allegations of ED influencing CBI for predicate offences refuted.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
DELHI: Today(on 29th April), The Delhi High Court has rejected a PIL seeking clarification on Section 66 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), which permits the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to share information with other agencies. Filed by a former ED officer and three lawyers, the PIL accused the ED of pressuring the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and other agencies to file cases for predicate offences, enabling the ED to invoke money laundering charges.
In response to the PIL, a Division Bench consisting of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora dismissed the petition, asserting that a “definitive interpretation” of Section 66 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) could be readily furnished by a single judge of the Court. The Bench concluded the PIL, allowing the concerned parties the freedom to address the matter in subsequent proceedings before the appropriate courts.
During the hearing, the Court made a noteworthy observation, emphasizing that individuals involved in these offences possess the means to contest the allegations before the appropriate forums. The Court underlined that the principle of locus standi cannot be relaxed for the “rich and mighty.”
ALSO READ: Co-Accused Confessions under Section 50 PMLA Deemed Inadmissible: Delhi High Court
The primary plea in the PIL sought the High Court’s intervention to establish the “correct law” under the ambit of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and to provide clarity regarding the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) role.
It argued that the ED, ostensibly acting under Section 66 of the PMLA, was sharing information with other agencies about alleged offences not covered by the Act, subsequently initiating First Information Reports (FIRs) with the police under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Moreover, the PIL alleged that the ED was exerting undue pressure on the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to file similar complaints or cases based on the information provided by the ED.
According to the petitioners, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) was assuming the roles of “complainant, witness, and victim” in the purported non-PMLA offences, even as it conducted investigations into the individuals named in its FIRs. This multifaceted involvement, the petitioners argued, created a scenario that was both “scandalous and precarious.” They contended that such a situation undermined the integrity of the investigative process and raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest.
Representing the ED, Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain argued that the PIL was motivated by private interests. He claimed that the lawyers who filed the PIL were already involved in a criminal case before a single-judge where the same law was being considered. Hossain alleged that the PIL was an attempt to interfere with the pending criminal proceedings, as the same issues had already been raised by the same advocates before the single-judge. Furthermore, he asserted that the Supreme Court had settled the matter of Section 66 in the Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary case.
ALSO READ: [Pankaj Bansal vs. UOI] ED Directed to Provide ‘Written Grounds’ of Arrest to PMLA Accused: SC
However, Advocate SK Srivastava, appearing for the petitioners, challenged these assertions. Srivastava argued that the law did not prohibit them from filing the PIL before a Constitutional court and suggested that it would be more appropriate for a Constitutional court to resolve the issue. He emphasized that while the ED was performing commendable work, it should not be considered above the law.
Case Title:
Ashok Kumar Singh and Ors v Union of India and Anr.
