Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice in the review petition filed by Karti Chidambaram against Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) judgment on limited purview. The Court in its PMLA Judgment had upheld the constitutional validity of the Act.

A bench of the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice CT Ravikumar has issued notice on the limited aspects, which includes:

1. Regarding the absence of a legal requirement to provide ECIR copy;
2. Reversal of whether the presumption of innocence required consideration.

The Court has also extended interim protection to Chidambaram for 4 weeks.

Yesterday, the Court had allowed an open court hearing in the review petition.

On August 22nd, the Supreme Court had agreed to hear a review petition filed challenging its judgment upholding the constitutional validity of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

A Justice AM Khanwilkar led bench of the top court on July 27 this year upheld the constitutional validity of various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The bench, also consisting of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar however held that the challenge to the passage of amendments to the Act in 2019 as a money bill will be considered by a larger bench. 

Over 200 petitions were filed challenging the provisions of the Act. It was argued before the court that the powers of the Enforcement Directorate to arrest, force confessions, and seize property were unbridled.

In its 545-page judgment, the Court answered 12 questions of law formulated in the batch of petitions. A comprehensive look at the same can be found here.

 

The court had upheld the constitutional validity of —

Section 3 which provides for the definition of money laundering;

Section 5 which pertains to the attachment of property;

Section 8(4) which provides powers to the authority to take possession of the attached property;

Section 17 which provides for search and seizure and Section 45 which provides for offences being cognizable and non-bailable

The bench had further held that the supply of the Enforcement Case Information Report under PMLA proceedings is not mandatory since ECIR is an internal document and cannot be equated to FIRs.

Case Title: KARTI P. CHIDAMBARAM vs. THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT