In a development marking the intersection of legal rigour and financial regulation, the Supreme Court is poised to revisit the contours of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) of 2002. A year after a resounding affirmation of the constitutionality of anti-money laundering laws and the expansive powers conferred upon the Enforcement Directorate (ED), a fresh wave of petitions is primed to test the boundaries of this legislative framework. The cases, scheduled for a hearing on August 29, probe into the heart of the PMLA, raising crucial questions about individual rights and the efficacy of financial crime investigation.
Last year's pivotal ruling by a three-judge bench, composed of Justices A M Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, and C T Ravikumar, upheld the foundational structure of the PMLA and the wide-ranging authority vested in the ED. However, this endorsement arrived with a caveat. The bench opted to defer judgment on the validity of amendments introduced to the PMLA through the vehicle of a Money Bill, reserving this complex matter for deliberation by a larger and more comprehensive Constitution bench.
The forthcoming petitions feature a constellation of prominent figures as petitioners, including Govind Singh, a Congress Member of the Legislative Assembly and the Leader of the Opposition in Madhya Pradesh, Karti Chidambaram, a Congress Member of Parliament, and Chanda Kochar, a former CEO of ICICI Bank. Singh’s recent plea, filed earlier this year, has been amalgamated with an array of other petitions collectively seeking a reevaluation of the 2022 verdict.
At the epicentre of these newly minted petitions lies the crux of Section 50 of the PMLA, which bestows upon the ED the power to summon individuals for investigation and to regard their statements as admissible evidence in subsequent court proceedings. While the weightier issue concerning amendments catalyzed through the avenue of the Money Bill process, capable of influencing a myriad of cases, remains pending the deliberation of a larger bench, this novel assemblage of petitions undertakes to challenge the accuracy and impartiality of the 2022 judgment.
The intricate legal landscape here necessitates a delicate procedural manoeuvre. Given the original 2022 ruling’s emergence from a three-judge bench, any decision to channel the matter towards a more expansive bench for comprehensive reconsideration would entail the engagement of an equivalently constituted bench of judges. Against this backdrop, the scheduled hearing on August 29th assumes paramount significance.
Source: Link
Picture Source :
