The Supreme Court has formed a new three-judge Bench to review its 2022 ruling that granted wide powers to the Enforcement Directorate under the PMLA, including arrest, summons, and property raids without safeguards.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court formed a new three-judge panel to determine whether its 2022 ruling, which affirmed the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) authority to make arrests and seize assets under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), requires re-examination.
The reconstituted bench, consisting of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, and N Kotiswar Singh, will review a series of petitions seeking reconsideration of the 2022 judgment.
The hearing is scheduled for May 7.
Previously, the matter was being heard by a bench comprising Justices Kant, Bhuyan, and CT Ravikumar, but Justice Ravikumar retired on January 5.
On March 6, Justice Kant informed lawyers that the pleas had been incorrectly listed before a two-judge bench and assured them that a new three-judge bench would address the issue shortly.
In its Vijay Madanlal Choudhary judgment on July 27, 2022, the Supreme Court upheld the ED’s powers of arrest, attachment of property involved in money laundering, and search and seizure under the PMLA.
The court’s decision came in response to a group of petitions challenging the ED’s arrest, investigation, and seizure procedures, as well as seeking clarification of the PMLA’s provisions.
In August of that year, the Supreme Court agreed to hear pleas seeking a review of its verdict, noting that two aspects the non-provision of an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and the reversal of the presumption of innocence “prima facie” warranted reconsideration.
The apex court acknowledged that money laundering is a threat to the proper functioning of a financial system worldwide, and it upheld the validity of certain PMLA provisions, emphasizing that it was not an “ordinary offence.”
The court stated that authorities under the 2002 law were “not police officers as such” and the ECIR could not be equated with an FIR under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
It clarified that providing an ECIR copy in every case to the person concerned was not mandatory, and it was sufficient if the ED disclosed the grounds for arrest at the time of arrest.
The verdict addressed over 200 petitions from individuals and entities challenging various aspects of the PMLA, a law that the opposition often claims is used by the government to harass its political opponents.
The Supreme Court had stated that Section 45 of the PMLA, which pertains to offenses being cognizable and non-bailable and includes dual conditions for bail, is reasonable and does not suffer from arbitrariness or unreasonableness.
‘ECIR copy not mandatory’
The SC said authorities under the 2002 law were “not police officers as such” and the ECIR could not be equated with an FIR under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
It had said supply of an ECIR copy in every case to the person concerned was not mandatory and it was enough if the ED had disclosed the grounds for it.