Review petition in PMLA matter to be heard by new bench in SC

New Delhi [India], November 23 : A review petition challenging the top court's order upholding various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) will be heard by a new bench of the Supreme Court as one of the judges in the bench is demitting office soon.
It will be heard by the new bench of the Supreme Court as one of the judges on the bench is departing soon.
The Supreme Court said on Thursday that the Chief Justice of India would have to reconstitute the bench in view of the fact that one of the judges on the bench is retiring soon.
A bench of three judges, comprising justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi, said that necessary orders must be obtained from the CJI on the reconstitution of the bench.
Justice Kaul, who is retiring in December, said that he is doing it with a heavy heart and remarked that "something must be left unsaid".
Justice Kaul, who was heading the bench, said that the Solicitor General sought deferment, which would leave no time for this bench to pen down an order.
SG Tusha Mehta requested the court defer the matter as he needs time to address the court, citing the complexity of the issues involved.
Meanwhile, the court has asked the Centre to file a reply to the amended petition within four weeks. The court also discussed the issue of whether they needed to express any view if they referred the matter to a larger bench before dissolving the bench.
On Wednesday, the Centre defended the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) before the Supreme Court and informed the top court that Rs 17,000 crore has been restored to victims, especially in bank fraud cases.
However, the petitioner questioned the provisions of the Money Laundering Act and the summoning of a person under the act.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing petitioners in the matter, has apprised the court about the various provisions and said that the Enforcement Directorate summons a person without telling them whether he is being called as an accused or witness in the matter and henceforth the person cannot take the appropriate legal remedy in the form of anticipatory bail.
He called the provisions draconian and said that under the PMLA provisions, one is not told the reasons and offences for being arrested. He said that even the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) is not known to them.
The court was hearing the review petitions challenging the top court's judgement upholding various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
The top court has earlier clarified that it would be addressing issues only related to PMLA on certain parameters.
SC noted that the last order on the review petition said that at least two aspects had to be reconsidered. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner, said that PMLA is not a penal statute. Senior Advocate Sibal also said that when someone is summoned under PMLA, one doesn't know whether he is summoned as a witness or accused.
Last year, the top court agreed to reconsider the review petition, saying that prima facie two issues relating to provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act needed to be reconsidered.
The court had earlier agreed to hear in open court the review petition against the judgement pertaining to upholding various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Congress MP Karti Chidambaram filed one of the review pleas.
On July 27, 2022, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which empowers the ED to make arrests, conduct searches and seizures and attach proceeds of crime.
The court had also held that an enforcement case information report (ECIR) cannot be equated with a first information report (FIR) and ED officers are not police officers.
The court was hearing various pleas challenging the various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) on Wednesday.
On March 15, 2022, the top court reserved its order on a batch of petitions challenging certain provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (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 an investigation and summons, while the accused was not made aware of the contents of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR).
The top court is considering Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, which deals with the powers of authorities in issuing summons, producing documents, and giving evidence, and Section 63
The Centre 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 that is aimed at necessarily preventing money laundering, regulating certain activities relatable to money laundering, confiscating the "proceeds of crime" and the property derived therefrom and also requiring offenders to be punished by the competent court after filing a complaint.
The Centre submitted that India and its version of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, are merely cogs in this international vehicle.
The Centre 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.