The on Saturday reconstituted the bench to hear pending review petitions challenging the landmark 2022 verdict regarding the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The matter will now be heard by a three-judge bench led by Justice Surya Kant, comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana.
Which bench was hearing the matter earlier?
Previously, the matter was before a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh. The Chief Justice noted that continuing the hearing with the previous bench would have required reconstituting three existing benches. The new bench was formed following the consent of all parties.
What did the 2022 verdict entail?
On July 27, 2022, a three-judge bench led by Justice AM Khanwilkar upheld the constitutional validity of several key provisions of the PMLA. The verdict affirmed the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) powers regarding arrest, search, seizure, and the attachment of assets linked to money laundering. In the review of the 2022 PMLA verdict, the Supreme Court will primarily examine issues concerning the provision of the ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report) copy to the accused and the clause under Section 24 that places the burden of proof on the accused.
Review petitions have been filed against this verdict. The Supreme Court had previously granted permission to review the judgment on specific, limited issues. The newly constituted bench will now hear these pending review petitions.
What does Section 45(1) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act say?
Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, says that all offences under the Act are cognisable and non-bailable. However, to secure bail, an accused must fulfil strict “twin conditions” such as the court must allow the public prosecutor to oppose the release, and be satisfied there are reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty and will not re-offend.
In the wake of these developments, the review petitioners questioned several aspects of the 2022 verdict, including the validity of the reverse burden of proof under Section 24, the refusal to treat the ECIR on the same footing as an FIR and the stringent bail requirements under Section 45. Apart from this, the review petitions also seek reconsideration of the judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v Union of India, in which a three-judge Bench had upheld the validity of several key PMLA provisions.