Congress calls SC's ruling on PMLA 'unfortunate', BJP alleges the party wants to 'protect a family'

New Delhi [India], July 27 : Following the Supreme Court upholding the validity of various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Congress were engaged in a war of words over the judgment.
Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot called the apex court's judgment on PMLA "disappointing".
"Supreme Court judgement on PMLA and rights of Enforcement Directorate (ED) is disappointing and worrying. The atmosphere of dictatorship that is prevalent in the country in the past few years, after this judgment the chances of an increase in political usage of ED by the central government will increase," Gehlot told ANI.

BJP chief JP Nadda said the Congress is protesting against PMLA in an attempt to "protect a family".
"Congress protests are not 'Satyagrah', but an attempt to hide the truth. They are protesting to protect a family, not the country. Gandhis are required to answer the investigation agencies, but they think they are above the law," Nadda told ANI.
"Supreme Court has upheld the PMLA and jurisdiction of ED. The law is taking its course and the Congress party's attempt to keep one family above the law will not work. We must respect the law of the land," he added.
Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju said the Opposition does not have any issue and is creating ruckus over the matter.

"When Supreme Court has passed an order or a judgement that validates the stand of the govt or the provisions of the Act, that itself is something that I should not be making any comment now," said Rijiju.
"When the opposition does not have any agenda in hand, they try to raise certain issues in Parliament to create disruptions and disturbances. These are bogus issues," Rijiju stated.
Senior Congress leader and former union minister Salman Khurshid alleged that the Centre is misusing PMLA.

"PMLA is not needed in the way it is being used. We condemn the misuse of PMLA. They (Enforcement Directorate) are showing their incompetence by doing 5 minutes of work in 3 days," Khurshid told ANI.
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.