Supreme Court upholds validity of various PMLA provisions
On July 15, the Supreme Court said that its judgement on the pleas challenging the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was almost ready.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the validity of various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and disposed of various pleas challenging the provisions of the Act.
The order was delivered by a bench headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar.
On July 15, the Supreme Court said that its judgement on the pleas challenging the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was almost ready.
On March 15 the top court reserved its order on a batch of petitions challenging certain provisions of the PMLA. Prominent names like Karti Chidambaram and former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti were among the petitioners in the case.
Their petitions raised multiple issues including the absence of a procedure to commence investigation and summoning, while the accused was not made aware of the contents of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR).
Section 45 deals with offences to be cognizable and non-bailable
Section 50 of the PMLA empowers the ‘authority’ i.e. officers of the Enforcement Directorate, to summon any person to give evidence or produce records. All persons summoned are bound to answer questions put to them, and to produce the documents as required by the ED officers, failing which they can be penalised under the PMLA.
However, the Centre had justified the constitutional validity of the provisions of PMLA.
The Centre has apprised the court that around 4,700 cases are being investigated by the Directorate of Enforcement.
The Centre said that PMLA is not a conventional penal statute but is a statute which is aimed at necessarily preventing money laundering, regulating certain activities relatable to money laundering, aims at confiscating the “proceeds of crime” and the property derived therefrom and also requires offenders to be punished by the competent court after filing of a complaint.
The Centre submitted that India, and its version of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, is merely a cog in this international vehicle. It submitted that India, as a signatory to the treaties and an important participant in the international process and the fight against money-laundering, is bound legally and morally, to adopt the global best practices and respond to the changing needs of the times.