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

BusinessVodafone Idea Share Price Falls as Supreme Court Postpones AGR Dues Hearing to Oct 6

BusinessVodafone Idea Share Price Falls By 6% Ahead of Supreme Court Hearing On Rs, 9450 Crore AGR Dues

NationalDelhi Metro Tragedy: Woman Falls or Jumps From Supreme Court Station; Investigation Underway

BusinessVodafone Idea Shares Rise by 1%: Telecom Stock Jumps 15% in One Month After Government Signals Support on AGR Dues

NationalSupreme Court Rejects Jacqueline Fernandez’s Plea to Dismiss Rs 215 Crore Money Laundering Charges Linked to Sukesh Chandrashekhar

National Realted Stories

NationalNavies of India, UK begin Exercise Konkan-25 off the western coast

NationalPiyush Goyal to visit Qatar for India-Qatar joint trade commission meeting

NationalIndian Army conducts humanitarian assistance, disaster relief ops in flood-hit Bhutan

NationalPunjab CM opens art memorial named after Sikh martyr Baba Jiwan Singh

NationalBJP biased against Telangana, alleges BRS leader