Supreme Court agrees to review its PMLA verdict; issues notice to Centre

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice to the central government on 2 issues, non-providing of Enforcement Case Investigation Report (ECIR) and reversal of presumption of innocence which are 2 issues that need reconsideration

It also issued a notice to the government on the review filed by Congress leader Karti Chidambaram.

Also read: Supreme Court on Pegasus: Government did not cooperate, no conclusive evidence

On July 27, 2022, the three-judge bench headed by Justice Khanwilkar upheld the PMLA law, including powers of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) regarding arrest, search, attachment and seizure in money laundering offences.

Earlier, the court underlined that "the principle of innocence of the accused/ offender is regarded as a human right" but "that presumption can be interdicted by a law made by the Parliament/Legislature".

The court also said that an ECIR cannot be equated with an FIR, supplying an ECIR in every case to the person concerned is not mandatory, and "it is enough if ED, at the time of arrest, discloses the grounds of such arrest".

Also read: PM Modi security breach: Supreme Court says Punjab Police failed

On Wednesday, the top court allowed an application of Congress MP Karti Chidambaram, seeking an open court hearing of his petition to review the top court's verdict last month.

Prior to that, the top court had, in a verdict on the application of provisions of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 observed that its judgement on the ED's powers under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to take possession of a property before trial in exceptional cases leaves scope for arbitrary application.

Also read: Some MLAs 'unreachable', AAP in a huddle at Arvind Kejriwal's residence

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice NV Ramana said that the ratio concerning Section 8(4) laid down by the PMLA judgement needs further explanation.

In its July 27 verdict, the apex court has said that the direction under Section 8(4) for taking possession of the property in question before a formal order of confiscation is passed should be an exception and not a rule. Section 8(4) allows the ED to take possession of the attached property at the stage of confirmation of provisional attachment made by the adjudicating authority.