The Supreme Court today rejected almost all of the arguments made against the investigation agency regarding a number of provisions, including starting an investigation, the right to make an arrest, conduct a search, and other provisions, supporting the Enforcement Directorate with a significant ruling. Nearly all of the strict rules of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which were being contested in court, have been maintained by the top court.
The court said that it is not mandatory for Enforcement Directorate (ED) officers to disclose the ground of arrest at the time of detaining an accused in a money laundering case.
The Justice AM Khanwilkar-led bench has strengthened the power of the investigation agency.
The petitioners had argued that it is illegal to have uncontrolled authority to detain the accused without providing them with the reason for the detention or the available evidence. The petitioners also said that the ED’s practise of recording an accused person’s incriminating remarks while interrogating them under the fear of a fee for information withholding amounted compulsion.
These arguments were denied by the top court.
The top court rejected the petitioners’ argument that the ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report) is similar to a FIR and the accused is entitled to a copy because it is an internal record, saying that it is not necessary because it is an internal document.
Additionally, the petitioners argued that putting the burden of proof on the accused infringes upon fundamental rights such the right to equality and the right to life. In response, the Centre, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, said that placing the burden of proof on the accused is appropriate due to the seriousness of the alleged money laundering offences and the necessity for society to stop it.
Another major challenge was the fact that it is unlawful to file PMLA charges in situations that occurred prior to 2002, the year the PMLA was established. The Center defended it by claiming that money laundering is a continuous offence that involves a series of acts rather than a single act. Even if they may have been produced before to 2002, proceeds of crime may still be in the accused’s possession or being used today.
In all of these issues, the court supported the centre today.
A number of petitions challenging specific elements of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act were previously on hold pending the supreme court’s decision (PMLA). Among the petitioners are Mehbooba Mufti, the former chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir, and politician Karti Chidambaram.
The constitutionality of the PMLA clauses was defended by the centre. The centre has defended the PMLA changes by arguing that money laundering threatens not only financial systems but also national integrity and sovereignty because it is not only done by dishonest businesspeople like Vijay Mallya or Nirav Modi but also by terrorist organisations.
The Chenab Times News Desk