New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to examine a plea seeking a review of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) verdict which upheld the Enforcement Directorate (ED)’s powers, including those relating to arrest, and sought a response from the Union government on the issue.
A bench headed by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana said prima facie two issues, including not providing Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR), require reconsideration. The other issue to be examined is the reversal of the presumption of innocence.
The top court on Wednesday had allowed an application of Congress MP Karti Chidambaram seeking an open court hearing of his petition to review the top court’s verdict last month upholding the sweeping powers of the ED relating to arrest, investigation, and attachment of property under the PMLA.
In its July 27 verdict, the apex court has said that the direction under Section 8(4) for taking possession of the property in question before a formal order of confiscation is passed should be an exception and not a rule.
Section 8(4) allows the ED to take possession of the attached property at the stage of confirmation of provisional attachment made by the adjudicating authority.
In an earlier hearing to consider a review of the judgment, the Supreme Court had observed, “Having perused the said judgment, we are of the opinion that the aforesaid ratio requires further expounding in an appropriate case, without which, much scope is left for arbitrary application.”
The July 27 verdict was delivered by a bench of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and C.T. Ravikumar. Justice Khanwilkar has since retired and hence the review petition was heard by the CJI bench.
CJI Ramana is set to retire on Friday, August 26, and the Supreme Court is hearing a host of important matters on Thursday. The CJI bench also heard the petition challenging the alleged abuse of the Pegasus spyware. The technical committee appointed by the top court to investigate the allegations found ‘malware’ in five out of the 29 devices submitted to it – but couldn’t confirm if it was Pegasus. The bench also noted that the Union government “did not cooperate” with the expert committee and will continue to hear the matter.