The Supreme Court on Tuesday deferred the hearing on a batch of review petitions challenging its 2022 judgment that upheld the extensive powers of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), including arrest, attachment of property, and search and seizure. The matter will now be heard on July 31.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi adjourned the case after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, informed the court of his unavailability. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, raised no objection to the new date.
On May 7, the top court had directed both the Centre and the petitioners to frame the issues that required adjudication. The Centre has maintained that the scope of review must remain confined to the two specific aspects for which the court had issued notice back in August 2022:
- Whether a copy of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) should be mandatorily supplied to the accused, and
- Whether the reversal of burden of proof under Section 24 of the PMLA needs reconsideration.
Sibal, however, reiterated his earlier argument that the case raises larger constitutional questions and should be referred to a larger bench for comprehensive scrutiny.
The Supreme Court’s 2022 judgment had affirmed the ED’s vast powers under PMLA, describing money laundering as a grave threat to the global financial system and distinguishing ED officers from regular police officials. The court ruled that the ECIR is not equivalent to an FIR and that providing a copy of it to the accused is not mandatory, so long as the grounds of arrest are disclosed.
The verdict had drawn criticism from opposition leaders and civil liberties advocates, who alleged that the law was being misused for political vendetta. Over 200 petitions had been filed against various provisions of the law.
The court had also upheld Section 45 of the PMLA, which imposes stringent twin conditions for the grant of bail, stating that these provisions were neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.
The upcoming hearing on July 31 is expected to focus narrowly on the two issues previously flagged for review, but the petitioners may continue to press for broader reconsideration of the law’s constitutional validity and procedural safeguards.
