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

EntertainmentNatashaa Fernandes on SC Order on Stray Dogs: Will It Solve the Problem or Create a New Crisis?

NationalCentre Opposes Lowering Age of Consent to 16 Under POCSO, Says Move Could Harm Minors

EntertainmentActor Darshan Arrested From Hosakerehalli Residence After Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Renukaswamy Murder Case

EntertainmentZara Khan Urges Supreme Court to Reconsider Order on Removing Stray Dogs from Delhi-NCR

Social Viral'His Name Is Dogesh': Dog Spotted in Supreme Court Premises During Stray Dog Hearing, Netizens Share Hilarious Jokes

National Realted Stories

NationalTransgenders entitled to new name and gender in educational documents: Manipur HC

NationalBJD delegation meets CEC, discusses 2024 poll irregularities

NationalCentral public sector enterprise HLL to represent India at FIGO 2025 in South Africa

NationalTejashwi Yadav compares voter rights fight to freedom struggle; slams Nitish Kumar

NationalChh’garh liquor scam: Chaitanya Baghel sent to ED custody, to move HC on Wednesday