SUPREME COURT :
The Supreme Court has established a panel of three judges, namely Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, and Bela M Trivedi, to preside over the review petitions filed against the July 2022 verdict of the apex court, which affirmed the legitimacy of the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The court will proceed to address the case commencing on October 18th.
On Tuesday, a bench comprising of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhansdhu Dhulia revealed that the case relating to summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate to Bharat Rashtra Samithi leader K Kavitha would be adjourned.
This decision was made in a formal setting. In November 2017, a bench of Justices Rohinton Nariman and Sanjay Kishan Kaul had invalidated Section 45(1) of the PMLA to the extent it imposed two additional conditions for grant of bail to money laundering accused.
The apex court had then provided various examples to demonstrate how the twin conditions were evidently arbitrary and discriminatory. However, in July 2022, a bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar overruled this decision in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. Union of India.
The Court upheld the legality of various provisions of the Act, including Sections 3 (which defines money laundering), 5 (which pertains to the attachment of property), 8(4) (which allows for the taking possession of attached property), 17 (which relates to search and seizure), 18 (which allows for the search of persons), 19 (which grants powers of arrest), 24 (which establishes a reverse burden of proof), 44 (which designates offences triable by special court), 45 (which classifies offences as cognizable and non-bailable, with specific conditions for granting bail by the court), and 50 (which concerns statements made to ED officials). The Supreme Court also determined that the provision of an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) during proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is not obligatory, as the ECIR is an internal document and cannot be equated to a First Information Report (FIR).
Furthermore, the Court dismissed the argument regarding the proportionality of punishment under the PMLA in relation to scheduled offences as entirely baseless. The ruling in 2022 has faced criticism and has prompted the submission of several review applications. Retired Supreme Court judge Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman expressed his deep disappointment with the decision in March. Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) UU Lalit endorsed the same viewpoint in November of last year, stating that in Indian criminal jurisprudence, the principle is "innocent until proven guilty."
In August of last year, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Central government in response to a review plea filed by Congress leader Karti Chidambaram, challenging the Vijay Madanlal ruling. In March of this year, a bench led by Justice Kaul also requested the Central government and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to provide their response to a plea challenging the validity of Sections 50 and 63 of the PMLA. Section 50 of the PMLA deals with powers related to summons, production of documents, and giving evidence, among other things. Section 63 addresses the punishment for providing false information or failing to provide information.
the Court upheld the legality of various provisions of the Act, including Sections 3 (which defines money laundering), 5 (which pertains to the attachment of property), 8(4) (which allows for the taking possession of attached property), 17 (which relates to search and seizure), 18 (which allows for the search of persons), 19 (which grants powers of arrest), 24 (which establishes a reverse burden of proof), 44 (which designates offences triable by special court), 45 (which classifies offences as cognizable and non-bailable, with specific conditions for granting bail by the court), and 50 (which concerns statements made to ED officials).
The Supreme Court also determined that the provision of an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) during proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is not obligatory, as the ECIR is an internal document and cannot be equated to a First Information Report (FIR). Furthermore, the Court dismissed the argument regarding the proportionality of punishment under the PMLA in relation to scheduled offences as entirely baseless. The ruling in 2022 has faced criticism and has prompted the submission of several review applications. Retired Supreme Court judge Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman expressed his deep disappointment with the decision in March. Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) UU Lalit endorsed the same viewpoint in November of last year, stating that in Indian criminal jurisprudence, the principle is "innocent until proven guilty." In August of last year, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Central government in response to a review plea filed by Congress leader Karti Chidambaram, challenging the Vijay Madanlal ruling. In March of this year, a bench led by Justice Kaul also requested the Central government and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to provide their response to a plea challenging the validity of Sections 50 and 63 of the PMLA. Section 50 of the PMLA deals with powers related to summons, production of documents, and giving evidence, among other things. Section 63 addresses the punishment for providing false information or failing to provide information.
the Court upheld the legality of various provisions of the Act, including Sections 3 (which defines money laundering), 5 (which pertains to the attachment of property), 8(4) (which allows for the taking possession of attached property), 17 (which relates to search and seizure), 18 (which allows for the search of persons), 19 (which grants powers of arrest), 24 (which establishes a reverse burden of proof), 44 (which designates offences triable by special court), 45 (which classifies offences as cognizable and non-bailable, with specific conditions for granting bail by the court), and 50 (which concerns statements made to ED officials). The Supreme Court also determined that the provision of an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) during proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is not obligatory, as the ECIR is an internal document and cannot be equated to a First Information Report (FIR). Furthermore, the Court dismissed the argument regarding the proportionality of punishment under the PMLA in relation to scheduled offences as entirely baseless. The ruling in 2022 has faced criticism and has prompted the submission of several review applications. Retired Supreme Court judge Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman expressed his deep disappointment with the decision in March. Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) UU Lalit endorsed the same viewpoint in November of last year, stating that in Indian criminal jurisprudence, the principle is "innocent until proven guilty." In August of last year, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Central government in response to a review plea filed by Congress leader Karti Chidambaram, challenging the Vijay Madanlal ruling. In March of this year, a bench led by Justice Kaul also requested the Central government and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to provide their response to a plea challenging the validity of Sections 50 and 63 of the PMLA. Section 50 of the PMLA deals with powers related to summons, production of documents, and giving evidence, among other things. Section 63 addresses the punishment for providing false information or failing to provide information.
TAGS: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA COURT PMLA JUSTICE SANJIV KHANN JUSTICE SK KAUL JUSTICE BELA M TRIVEDI
