Supreme Court Today (Dec 19) reprimanded ED counsel for presenting arguments conflicting with the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. ED maintained that stringent conditions apply even to women or those who are ill or infirm.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today expressed dissatisfaction with the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) lawyer for presenting arguments that appeared to go against the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
The ED argued that strict legal conditions under the law should apply even to vulnerable groups like women, minors, or those who are unwell or physically weak.
The Supreme Court questioned how the ED could argue in a way that contradicts the law’s provisions.
During the hearing, Justice AS Oka directed sharp remarks at the ED’s counsel:
“If the Union argues against the statute, we’ll call the Attorney General to appear. You’re suggesting the proviso won’t apply even to a woman accused. If that’s your stance, argue it now.”
The ED lawyer, however, requested additional time to prepare their arguments. This prompted Justice Oka to respond sternly:
“You need time even for your own submissions? We want to understand how you can argue against the statute. And then you’ll claim we didn’t let you argue—lawyers are increasingly making such allegations these days.”
The Additional Solicitor General (ASG), representing the ED, argued that the strict conditions under Clause (2) of Sub-section (1) of Section 45 of the PMLA would still apply. This includes cases involving:
- Women accused of crimes.
- Children under the age of 16.
- Individuals who are sick or physically weak.
The ASG maintained this position despite the proviso in Section 45, which offers exceptions for these vulnerable groups.
When the Supreme Court sought further clarification, the ED lawyer again requested more time. The court, however, directed the ED to submit a detailed response, known as a counter-affidavit, by January 10, 2024.
The court highlighted the need for clarity, especially when it comes to legal provisions meant to protect vulnerable individuals.
The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on January 15, 2024.
A clearer stance from the ED is expected by January 10, with a follow-up hearing to determine the case’s direction.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on ED
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
