The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Centre and the petitioners to frame specific issues for adjudication in the review petitions challenging its 2022 judgment that upheld the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) wide-ranging powers under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, and N Kotiswar Singh heard submissions from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Centre and senior advocate Kapil Sibal for the petitioners. The court had earlier agreed to reconsider two key aspects of the ruling: the supply of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) to the accused and the reversal of burden of proof under Section 24 of the Act.
Solicitor General Mehta maintained that the review should remain confined to those two issues, as indicated in the August 2022 order admitting the petitions. He clarified that although the bench had not expressly stated the two aspects in the order, the Centre had filed an affidavit the next day to that effect, and it had not been disputed by the petitioners.
Sibal, however, contended that the court’s order held precedence over the government’s affidavit and suggested that the case be referred to a larger bench. He also urged the court to schedule an early date for finalising procedural issues.
Justice Kant expressed dissatisfaction with the draft issues submitted by the petitioners, remarking that the assisting counsel should have done “better homework.” Following this, the matter was listed for July 16 to finalise the issues to be examined, ahead of the substantive hearing now set to begin on August 6, with a possible continuation on August 7.
The review follows the apex court’s July 2022 verdict which upheld the ED’s powers of arrest, attachment of property, and search and seizure under PMLA, emphasizing that money laundering posed a serious threat to financial systems globally. The court had also ruled that authorities under the PMLA were not “police officers” and held that ECIRs need not be provided in every case, provided grounds for arrest were communicated.
The verdict came in response to over 200 petitions challenging various provisions of the PMLA. Critics, including opposition parties, have repeatedly alleged that the law is used as a tool to target political rivals.
The Supreme Court had also upheld the constitutionality of Section 45, which makes PMLA offences cognisable and non-bailable and imposes twin conditions for grant of bail, finding it reasonable and not arbitrary.
