SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS VALIDITY OF PMLA, SAYS IT IS NOT MANDATORY FOR ED TO DISCLOSE GROUNDS OF ARREST

The Supreme Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) upheld the validity of certain provisions and stated that it is not mandatory to give an Enforcement Case Information Report in every case in relation to the person concerned.

It was stated by the Apex Court that the stringent condition of the for bail under the Act is legal and not arbitrary. Concerning the interpretation of certain provisions of the PMLA, the Supreme Court delivered its verdict on a batch of petitions.

Court Decision:

The Top Court stated that the stringent conditions for bail under the Act are legal and not arbitrary.

On around 250 petitions filled by the various accused, the court passed an order.

It was stated by the Court that it is not mandatary for Enforcement Directorate (ED) officers to disclose the ground of arrest at the time of detaining an accused in a money laundering case.

At the time of the arrest, It is enough if Enforcement Directorate discloses grounds of such arrest.

It was also said by the apex court that the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) cannot be equated with FIR and ECIR is an internal document of ED.

The Supreme Court said that only disclosure of reasons during the arrest is enough and the supply of ECIR to the accused is not mandatory.

The bench comprising of justice AM Khanwilkar, justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and the Justice CT Ravi Kumar observed and delivered the judgment on over 200 petitions challenging various provisions of the PMLA.

The petitioners among the high profiles were Anil Deshmukh, Karti Chidambaram, and Mehbooba Mufti.

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

It was contended by the petitioner that the PMLA provisions violate some of the fundamental rights. It was stated by the petitioner that the ED’s unchecked power to arrest the accused without informing them of grounds of arrest or evidence is not constitutional.

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

During the hearing of petition, while concerning the interpretation of certain PMLA provisions, the apex court had deliberated on section 45 of the Act as well as section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and also on balancing the rights of the accused.

It is stated that Section 45 of the PMLA deals with the aspect of offences to be non-bailable and cognizance, section 436A of the CrPC deals with the maximum period for which it can detain an undertrial prisoner.

On Section 9 of the PMLA, the apex court also heard arguments, which deals with the aspect of power to arrest, as well as section 3 that provides the definition of a money-laundering offence.