NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday said it would, in April, decide if its 2022 verdict upholding the ED’s powers to arrest and attach property under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) needs reconsideration. A two-judge bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh said a three-judge bench was supposed to hear the matter and it was wrongly listed before it.
“So, we will defer the hearing for another day and date in April,” the bench said.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, agreed with the bench and asked it to defer the hearing in late April or early May. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner, said the matter ought to be heard expeditiously by a three-judge bench.
After hearing this, Justice Surya Kant said he ordered listing the matter before a three-judge bench on the administrative side and wondered how it came before the two-judge bench. “We will give you a specific date but this matter will not be heard before April-end,” the bench said.
The top court was hearing a batch of pleas seeking reconsideration of the July 27, 2022 verdict of a three-judge bench on certain parameters. The verdict upheld the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) powers of arrest and attachment of property involved in money laundering, search and seizure under PMLA.
In August 2022, the top court agreed to hear a plea seeking a review of its July 2022 verdict and observed that two aspects – not providing an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and reversal of the presumption of innocence – prima facie required reconsideration.
Observing it was a common world over that money laundering was a “threat” to the good functioning of a financial system, the apex court upheld the validity of certain provisions of the PMLA, underlining it is not an “ordinary offence”.
The top court said authorities under the 2002 Act were “not police officers as such” and the ECIR couldn’t be equated with an FIR under Code of Criminal Procedure. It had said supply of an ECIR copy in every case to the person concerned was not mandatory.
It said Section 45 of PMLA, which deals with offences to be cognisable and non-bailable and have twin conditions for bail, was reasonable and did not suffer from arbitrariness or unreasonableness.
Also in top court
‘Deny liberty if it ends corruption in society’
Saying courts should not hesitate in denying liberty to an accused for ensuring a corruption-free society, the Supreme Court upheld dismissal of a public official’s anticipatory bail in a corruption case, noting that “solicitous homage to the accused’s liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice.”
‘Matters of liberty must be prioritised’
The SC on Thursday said courts were not expected to post matters concerning liberty after a long gap. The remark came when the court was told that Punjab & Haryana High Court had posted hearing of a temporary bail plea on medical grounds after two months. The matter could be taken up expeditiously in high court, SC said.