Supreme Court reconstitutes three-judge Bench to hear on ED’s powers.

Supreme Court reconstitutes three-judge Bench to hear on ED’s powers.

New Delhi:The Bench will review a two-year-old judgment which gave unbridled powers to ED to arrest and summon individuals and raid private property under Prevention of Money Laundering Act

The Supreme Court has reconstituted a three-judge Bench to review a two-year-old judgment which gave unbridled powers to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to arrest and summon individuals and raid private property under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The reconstituted Bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N. Kotiswar Singh is scheduled to take up the case on May 7, 2025.Justice Singh replaced Justice C.T. Ravikumar, who retires on January 5.

The case had seen several back-to-back adjournments in the past months though the court had assured lawyers appearing in the case, who include senior advocates Kapil Sibal and A.M. Singhvi, for petitioners like Karti Chidambaram, an uninterrupted two-day hearing of the case. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appears for the Union government.

The petitioners have alleged that the apex court’s July 27, 2022 judgment deprived an accused person’s basic rights, which include even a copy of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR). The core amendments to which the judgment gave its stamp of approval had virtually transferred the burden of proof of innocence onto the shoulders of the accused instead of the prosecution.

Twin conditions

The 545-page judgment, authored by Justice (now retired) A.M. Khanwilkar, had upheld the PMLA’s controversial “twin conditions” for bail.

These conditions provided that a PMLA-designated trial court was required to give bail only if the accused could prove his innocence against money laundering charges. On the slim chance the accused did get bail, he had to establish that he was “not likely to commit any offence while on bail”.

For an undertrial, who is under incarceration and with whom the ED has not shared the Enforcement Case Information Report, to prove that he is not guilty, to say the least, may prove to be a herculean if not an impossible task, the review petitions had argued.

“The apex court had called the PMLA a law against the “scourge of money laundering” and not a hatchet wielded against rival politicians and dissenters.

“This is a sui generis (unique) legislation… The Parliament enacted the Act as a result of international commitment to sternly deal with the menace of money laundering of proceeds of crime having transnational consequences and on the financial systems of the countries,” the 545-page judgment had said.

The 2022 judgment was based on an extensive challenge raised against the amendments introduced to the 2002 Act by way of a Finance Act in 2019. Over 240 petitions were filed against these amendments which the challengers claimed to violate personal liberty, procedures of law and the constitutional mandate. The petitions which led to the 2022 judgment had argued that the process itself had transformed into the punishment.