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

NationalWho Is Harish Rana? Man in Coma for 12 Years Gets Right to Die After Supreme Court Order

MumbaiMumbai: Retired Bank Manager, Family Held in ‘Digital Arrest’ for 35 Days; ₹1.83 Crore Lost to Cyber Fraud in Mulund

InternationalDonald Trump's Global Tariffs Illegal : US Supreme Court Deals Major Blow to President

EntertainmentNeeraj Pandey Drops ‘Ghooskhor Pandat’ Title; Supreme Court Closes Case

InternationalRamadan 2026 Moon Sighting in Saudi Arabia: Supreme Court of KSA Calls on Muslims to Search for Crescent on THIS Date

National Realted Stories

NationalED conducts search at premises of Kolkata-based realty firm Merlin Group on PMLA charges

NationalBJP Approaches ECI With Plea To Bar Bengal CM From Campaigning for Specific Period

National'Frivolous and baseless': CBI opposes Kejriwal's plea seeking Justice Sharma's withdrawal from Delhi excise policy case

NationalHyderabad: Man arrested for abusive comment on Renu Desai​

NationalGujarat: Deputy Mamlatdar booked for disproportionate assets