2 PMLA aspects should be relooked: Supreme Court

Satya Prakash

Advertisement

New Delhi, August 25

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice to the Centre on Congress MP Karti Chidambaram’s petition seeking review of its recent verdict upholding the validity of various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) that gave wider powers of arrest and seizure to the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

Issues notice to centre

The objective of the Act is noble….Two aspects – not providing accused with a copy of enforcement case information report and reversal of presumption of innocence — need to be reconsidered. SC Bench

Noting that the objective behind the PMLA was noble, a Bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice CT Ravikumar said two aspects — not providing the accused with a copy of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and reversal of presumption of innocence — needed to be reconsidered.

“We are in full support of the prevention of black money. Country can’t afford such offences. The object is noble,” it said, asking the Centre to respond to the two issues highlighted in the review petition. It extended its order granting interim protection by four weeks.

As senior counsel Kapil Sibal urged the Bench to reconsider the entire judgment, the CJI said, “My brothers are not agreeable.”

On behalf of the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the review petition. “There has to be an error apparent on record for review. And this is not a standalone Act… It is as per India’s international commitments and the constitutional scheme,” Mehta submitted.

The Supreme Court had on Wednesday decided to grant an open court hearing to Karti Chidambaram’s petition for a review of its July 27 verdict.

Review petitions are generally heard “in chamber”, and not in an open court, by a procedure called “hearing by circulation” where advocates representing the parties are not allowed to argue. But in exceptional cases, the court allows open court hearing if convinced about its need. While Wednesday’s hearing of the review petition was “by circulation”, it was heard in an open court on Thursday.