SC agrees strict provisions of PMLA, says money laundering cases ‘not arbitrary’

The top court said that the Enforcement Case Information Report cannot be equated to FIR, as it is an internal document.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday affirmed the stringent provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in connection with the definition of the proceeds of crime, power of arrest, search and seizure, attachment of properties, and also the twin bail conditions. The top court said stringent conditions for bail under the Act is legal and not arbitrary.

A bench comprising justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, and C.T. Ravi Kumar delivered the judgment on over 200 petitions challenging various provisions of the PMLA. Anil Deshmukh, Karti Chidambaram, and Mehbooba Mufti were among the high-profile petitioners.

The top court said it is not mandatory for the Enforcement Directorate (ED) officers to disclose the grounds of arrest at the time of detaining an accused in a money laundering case.

MS Education Academy

The top court said the supply of Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) in all cases isn’t necessary, however, when a person is before a special court, the court can ask for records to see if continued imprisonment is necessary. It added that ECIR cannot be equated to FIR, as it is an internal document. Detailed judgment will be uploaded later in the day.

The top court dealt with the validity of a wide range of powers granted to the ED under the amended law against money laundering. The powers available to the ED for search, arrest, seizure, investigation, and attachment of proceeds of an offense under PMLA have been challenged.

The apex court verdict is likely to affect a huge number of Opposition leaders, who are under the scanner of the Central investigating agency.

The petitioners have contended that the PMLA provisions violate some fundamental rights. The petitioners said that the unchecked power to arrest the accused without informing them of the grounds of arrest or evidence is not constitutional.

The law has faced several criticisms, which include non-reporting of grounds of arrest, arrest of persons without ECIR (similar to FIR) copy, strict bail conditions, etc.

Back to top button