ADVERTISEMENT

Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Petition Seeking Review Of PMLA Verdict

The top court said prima facie it was open to reconsider the judgment on two specific issues.

<div class="paragraphs"><p>Chief Justice of India NV Ramana.&nbsp;(Photograph: President of India/Twitter)</p></div>
Chief Justice of India NV Ramana. (Photograph: President of India/Twitter)

The Supreme Court of India has agreed to reconsider a petition seeking review of its earlier judgment that affirmed the validity of the anti-money laundering act dealing with powers of the Enforcement Directorate.

During the course of the open hearing, the bench presided by Chief Justice of India said it was prima facie looking to reconsider two aspects of the judgment:

  • The non-supply of the Enforcement Case Information Report.

  • The reversal of the principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

The bench issued notice on the review petition filed earlier this week.

The petitioner, Karti Chidambaram, is seeking review of the top court’s last month’s judgment that upheld the validity of various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The provisions related to the powers of arrest, summon; attachment and bail in cases of money laundering being investigated by the ED.

Chidambaram’s review petition argued that the top court in the verdict did not deal with many crucial issues and also contradicted its own earlier judgments, including that by a five-judge constitution bench.

Grounds Of Challenge

Some of the provisions under challenge in the case were introduced through the Finance Act as a money bill. The top court’s July judgment did not deal with the validity of the process through money bill and left it to be decided by a higher bench.

Chidambaram’s petition has made this as one of the grounds to seek a review of the verdict.

Also, the petition argued that the top court judgment erred in not equating the officers of the ED as police officers. This reasoning was part of the top court upholding the requirement of not providing a copy of the ECIR to the parties.

The bench in the main judgment had agreed that ECIR was an internal document and it was not mandatory that its copy should be made public, unlike an FIR registered by a police officer.

The review petition raised the issue of opacity in the procedure followed by the ED in the investigations and that they are not subject to the safeguards of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The top court bench had pointed out the heinous nature of the offence of money laundering and expressed satisfaction with the inherent protections provided in the PMLA to deny the request of making the ED investigations subject to CrPC.

The review petition argued that the current procedure under the PMLA and failing to make it subject to the CrPC breaches the requirement of curtailing fundamental right only by “procedure established by law” and therefore violates Article 21[Right to Life and Liberty] under the Indian Constitution.

Chidambaram’s petition has also sought a review of the top court’s conclusions on bail and summoning provisions. The twin conditions required for bail would mean that the principle of innocence until proven guilty is violated, it said.

The summoning provision, the petition said, will end up resulting in a violation of the protection granted against self-incrimination through the Constitution.

Finally, the petition sought a review of the retrospective application of the PMLA Act to scheduled offences and offences connected thereof. This would be contrary to the Article 20(1) of the Indian Constitution which provides for protection against conviction of offences committed prior to enactment of the law.