New Delhi: A person summoned by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for sharing information or evidence is not entitled to protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, the Delhi high court said on Friday as it refused to quash the agency’s summons issued to West Bengal law minister Moloy Ghatak in connection with a coal pilferage case.
According to Article 20(3), no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
The high court was hearing Ghatak’s petition seeking to quash the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR), which is equivalent to an FIR in an ordinary criminal case, and summons issued to him and also directing the agency not to summon him in Delhi.
“Mere issuance of summons under section 50 of PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) for the purpose of giving information or evidence, whether oral or documentary, will not attract the protection guaranteed by the Indian Constitution under Article 20(3), as the argument in itself is contradictory, since on the one hand, the petitioner himself states that he does not know whether he is accused or witness, on the other hand, he wants protection as an accused and a direction that he cannot be a witness against himself,” justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.
The high court’s remarks come at a time when the Supreme Court is contemplating a review of certain provisions of the PMLA. The top court, in July last year, in the Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary case, upheld ED’s powers relating to summons, arrest, property seizure and searches – a ruling that has since been challenged.
{{/usCountry}}The high court’s remarks come at a time when the Supreme Court is contemplating a review of certain provisions of the PMLA. The top court, in July last year, in the Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary case, upheld ED’s powers relating to summons, arrest, property seizure and searches – a ruling that has since been challenged.
{{/usCountry}}