The case was discussed in chambers today by a bench consisting of the Chief Justice of India, NV Ramana, and Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar, who also set an open court hearing for tomorrow.
Karti P. Chidambaram v. The Directorate of Enforcement, a review case filed by Congressman Karti Chidambaram contesting the Supreme Court’s ruling maintaining the legality of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), was given open court hearing on Wednesday.
The case was discussed in chambers today by a bench consisting of the Chief Justice of India, NV Ramana, and Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar, who also set an open court hearing for tomorrow.
“The request for an oral hearing is approved. Set the case for hearing on August 25, 2022 “The command read.
On July 27, the Supreme Court upheld the legality of the PMLA’s provisions.
In contrast to past Supreme Court rulings, the verdict supported strict bail requirements in cases involving money laundering.
The Court also upheld the legality of Sections 3 (definition of money laundering), 5 (attachment of property), 8(4) [taking possession of attached property], 17 (search and seizure), 18 (search of persons), 19 (powers of arrest), 24 (reverse burden of proof), 44 (offences triable by special court), 45 (offences being cognizable and non-bailable and twin conditions for grant of bail by court), and Sections 24 (reverse burden of proof) (statements made to ED officials).
The ruling under appeal further said that since an ECIR is an internal document and cannot be compared to a First Information Report, it is not necessary to provide one during PMLA proceedings (FIR).
“ECIR is an internal ED document and cannot be compared to FIR.
Even the ED manual is not to be publicised since it is an internal document, and only disclosure of reasons for arrest is required of the accused “The verdict had stated.
However, the Court had ruled that a larger bench of seven judges, before whom the identical issue is already ongoing, must decide whether or not to adopt changes to the PMLA Act as a money bill in 2019.
Many in the legal profession condemned the ruling for violating Article 21 of the Constitution’s fundamental right to liberty.
It’s interesting to note that yesterday, another three-judge bench of the Supreme Court stated that the PMLA verdict’s ruling on Section 8(4) of the PMLA gave room for arbitrary application.
The ratio concerning Section 8(4) established by the PMLA judgement in Vijay Madanlal Choudary & Ors v. Union of India would need further explanation, according to a bench consisting of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli, in order to prevent arbitrary application.
The comments were made in a ruling declaring as unlawful many clauses of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act of 1988 and the 2016 modifications to the 1988 Act.
Read more legal news here.