The Supreme Court has stayed the Allahabad High Court’s decision that questioned the constitutional validity of the second proviso to Section 8(8) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). This move brings temporary relief in a case that could have far-reaching implications on the interpretation and implementation of the anti-money laundering law.
The legal challenge was spearheaded by renowned Supreme Court advocate Ashish Deep Verma, who contended that the second proviso to Section 8(8) contradicts Sections 8(5) and 8(6) of the PMLA, as well as the operative portion of Section 8(8) itself. His primary argument rested on the assertion that the legislative intent behind the Act was being misinterpreted and misapplied by the High Court.
Acknowledging the gravity of the constitutional questions raised, the Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Rajiv Bindal took cognizance of the matter and issued a notice while staying the Allahabad High Court’s ruling.
Verma argued that individuals should not be treated as “convicted” before the framing of charges in a trial, emphasizing that this interpretation violates fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India. “A person cannot be presumed guilty without due process, as guaranteed under the Constitution,” he stated, underscoring the necessity for fair trial principles.
He further pointed out that the Allahabad High Court's order, which sought to enforce the contested proviso, had been issued prematurely. According to him, this would effectively lead to a scenario where an accused is treated as convicted without undergoing the essential judicial process of a formal trial. Such an approach, he argued, renders the High Court’s order “ultra vires,” as it encroaches upon constitutional safeguards ensuring fairness and due process in legal proceedings.
The apex court will now undertake a detailed examination of the legal and constitutional aspects concerning the impugned proviso in Section 8(8) of the PMLA.
Picture Source :
