Supreme Court Postpones Key Hearing on PMLA Review Petition

The Supreme Court deferred the hearing on a petition reviewing its upholding of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The hearing is rescheduled for September 18 due to the absence of one of the judges. The case involves significant legal and constitutional arguments about PMLA's provisions.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court deferred its hearing on the review petition challenging the judgment upholding various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). A bench of justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan postponed the matter to September 18, citing the absence of one of the three-judge bench members.

The review petition contests the Supreme Court's earlier judgment affirming the PMLA provisions. In the previous hearing, the court identified two issues requiring prima facie examination. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioner, argued that the ruling demands reconsideration.

The Supreme Court assured both sides ample opportunity to present their arguments on the legal issues. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed revisiting the judgment, asserting that PMLA aligns with the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) guidelines and is more than a standalone offence.

Previously, the court emphasized the gravity of money laundering offences and agreed to an open court hearing on the review petition. The petition was filed by Congress MP Karti Chidambaram, among others.

On July 27, 2022, the Supreme Court upheld the PMLA provisions, empowering the Directorate of Enforcement to make arrests, conduct searches, and seize assets. The court clarified that Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) is not equivalent to a First Information Report (FIR), and ED officers are not considered police officers.

In a March 15, 2022 order, the top court reserved its judgment on several petitions challenging PMLA provisions. Notable petitioners include Karti Chidambaram and former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti, who raised concerns about procedural issues in investigations and summons, including the accused's lack of awareness of the ECIR contents.

The Centre defended the PMLA's constitutional validity, informing the court that approximately 4,700 cases are under investigation by the Directorate of Enforcement. It argued that PMLA is essential for preventing, regulating, and punishing money laundering, following global best practices and international treaties.

(With inputs from agencies.)