City
Epaper

SC affirms stringent provisions of PMLA, not compulsory for ED to disclose ground of arrest

By IANS | Updated: July 27, 2022 12:00 IST

New Delhi, July 27 The Supreme Court on Wednesday affirmed the stringent provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering ...

Open in App

New Delhi, July 27 The Supreme Court on Wednesday affirmed the stringent provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in connection with 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.

The top court said the supply of 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 by 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 offence 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 of the fundamental rights. The petitioners said that unchecked power to arrest the accused without informing them of 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.

Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor

Tags: A.m. khanwilkarSupreme CourtDinesh MaheshwariAnil DeshmukhMaharashtra youth congressSeveral supreme courtSupreme court and high court level
Open in App

Related Stories

NationalSupreme Court Issues Notice to Bihar and Delhi Governments Over Minor Girl's Plea Against Forced Child Marriage

NationalThane-Ghodbunder Tunnel: Supreme Court Accepts Maharashtra Govt's Decision to Scrap Rs 14,000 Crore Bid, Big Relief to L&T

NationalCryptocurrency Needs To Be Regulated, Banning Not an Option, Says Supreme Court

MaharashtraPune Porsche Crash: One Year On, 9 Accused Still Behind Bars; Justice Still in Motion

MaharashtraSupreme Court Clears Way for Local Body Elections in Maharashtra, Retains Pre-2022 OBC Quota

National Realted Stories

NationalPromoting Hyderabad as global investment destination: Revanth Reddy

NationalLock up all student union rooms till elections conducted, Calcutta HC directs all Bengal colleges and universities

NationalMumbai mega scam: ED uncovers Rs 41 crore trail in VVMC illegal construction racket

NationalDelhi: MP Praveen Khandelwal fumes at encroachment by junk dealers near LNJP hospital

NationalMP govt to prepare plan to control slum expansion in urban areas