PMLA Act: Supreme Court to hear tomorrow review plea against its verdict upholding ED powers to arrest, attach property

The Supreme Court is likely to take up tomorrow a plea seeking review of its order upholding the Enforcement Directorate's powers related to arrest, attachment of property involved in money laundering, search and seizure under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

On July 27, the top court had upheld the ED powers relating to arrest, attach property, search and seize under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, in a huge leg up for the central agency often accused of abusing its authority to target the government's political adversaries.

Observing that it is a common experience world over that money laundering can be a "threat" to the good functioning of a financial system, the apex court upheld the validity of certain provisions of the PMLA, some of which were contested by over 240 petitioners, including Congress MP Karti Chidambaram.

The top court verdict had come on a clutch of over 200 petitions filed by individuals and other entities questioning various provisions of the PMLA, a law which the opposition has often claimed has been weaponised by the government to harass its political adversaries.

The court said section 45 of the PMLA, which deals with offences to be cognisable and non-bailable and have twin conditions for bail, is reasonable and does not suffer from vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness. The petitioners had also challenged the stringent bail conditions laid down by the law for the accused.

Section 45 says when the public prosecutor opposes the bail plea of an accused, the court can grant relief only after it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of having committed such an offence and is unlikely to commit any offence if granted bail.

It said section 5 of the Act, which relates to attachment of property involved in money laundering, is constitutionally valid.

The bench also endorsed section 24 of PMLA relating to self-incrimination. Section 24 says when a person is accused of having committed the offence of money laundering, the burden of proving that proceeds of crime are untainted property shall be on the accused.

The bench said statements recorded by authorities under the 2002 Act are not hit by Article 20(3) or Article 21 of the Constitution. While Article 20 (3) says that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself, Article 21 deals with protection of life and personal liberty.