SC to hear plea of Karti Chidambaram

After reviewing the review petition in chambers, a bench made up of Chief Justice N V Ramana and justices Dinesh Maheshwari and C T Ravikumar decided to hear the case in open court on Thursday. In response to a petition from Congressman Karti P. Chidambaram, the Supreme Court decided to review its ruling from July 27 that upheld the validity of the strict provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, including the Enforcement Directorate’s authority to arrest, search, and seize ill-gotten gains that threaten the nation’s economic stability, sovereignty, and integrity. After reviewing the review petition in chambers, a bench made up of Chief Justice N V Ramana and justices Dinesh Maheshwari and C T Ravikumar decided to hear the case in open court on Thursday.The review petition is typically considered by judges in their chambers and is posted for consideration by the same bench that issued the case’s original ruling, according to SC rules. On behalf of the three-judge bench, Justice A M Khanwilkar had written the PMLA judgement; however, he had since retired. He is now succeeded by the CJI for the purpose of considering the review petition. Chidambaram argued in his petition that the judgement needed to be reviewed because it contained serious errors and was in conflict with earlier rulings and Constitutional provisions.The top court ruled on July 27 that various provisions of attachment of properties used in money laundering, including current search and seizure procedures, are constitutionally valid and essential for tracing criminal proceeds. Additionally, it supported the agency’s right to make an arrest without first obtaining an enforcement case information report (ECIR), which is comparable to a police first information report.But it added that “ECIR cannot be equated with a FIR under the 1973 Code due to the special mechanism envisaged by the 2002 Act. The fact that no FIR has been filed in connection with a scheduled offence does not prevent the authorities from starting their inquiry or investigation in order to begin “civil action” or “provisional attachment” of property that is the proceeds of crime. The ECIR is an internal document of the ED.The judge ruled that it is sufficient to explain to the suspect why he is being detained. The 545-page judgement further stated, “Supply of a copy of ECIR to the person concerned in every case is not mandatory; it is sufficient if ED at the time of arrest, discloses the grounds of such arrest.”The judge ruled that it is sufficient to explain to the suspect why he is being detained. The 545-page judgement further stated, “Supply of a copy of ECIR to the person concerned in every case is not mandatory; it is sufficient if ED at the time of arrest, discloses the grounds of such arrest.”

By Subhechcha Ganguly