Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has dismissed a review petition against its recent judgment which had declared that its 2023 ruling in Pankaj Bansal case mandating the Enforcement Directorate to provide grounds of arrest to an accused in writing as a matter of course and without exception is to be applied prospectively.

A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma declined to reconsider December 15, 2023 judgment rendered on the petition filed by Ram Kishore Arora, founder of real estate company Supertech.

"We have carefully gone through the said judgment and the Review Petition. In our opinion, no case for review is made out. Consequently, the Review petition is dismissed," the bench said in its order on January 31, 2024.

Court also rejected an application filed by Arora seeking listing of the review petition in open court. As per the Supreme Court Rules, a review petition is considered in judges chamber through circulation of papers.

In its December 15, 2023 judgment, the bench had rejected Arora's plea to apply the Bansal judgement retrospectively to declare his arrest by the ED as illegal.

"The very use of the word “henceforth” (in Bansal) implied that the said requirement of furnishing grounds of arrest in writing to the arrested person as soon as after his arrest was not the mandatory or obligatory till the date of the said judgement," the bench said. 

The apex court had also explained furnishing of grounds on arrest can be done within the reasonably convenient or reasonably requisite time, that is, 24-hour of the arrest.

It had also pointed out a three-judge bench in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case (2022) had already examined in detail and upheld the constitutional validity of Section 19 (power of arrest) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act on the touchstone of Article 22(1) (a person is to be informed about the grounds of arrest) of the Constitution.

"It (Choudhary) holds the field as on the date," it had said.  

In the appellant's case, the bench had held that there was due compliance of the provisions contained in Section 19 of PMLA since he was informed of the grounds of arrest and his signature was obtained on the document at the time of his arrest.

The bench had also explained the expression “as soon as may be” contained in Section 19 of PMLA is required to be construed as- “as early as possible without avoidable delay” or “within reasonably convenient” or “reasonably requisite” period of time. 

"The reasonably convenient or reasonably requisite time to inform the arrestee about the grounds of his arrest would be 24-hour of the arrest," the bench had said.   

Citing the Rule of precedent and jurisprudential wisdom, the court had said a three-judge bench in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case already upheld the validity of Section 19 of the PMLA, finding that the said provision has reasonable nexus with the purposes and objects sought to be achieved by the PMLA.

Case Title: Ram Kishore Arora vs. Directorate of Enforcement