Petitions against two PMLA provisions need to stop: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Monday said the trend of filing petitions challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of PMLA must stop.
The Supreme Court on Monday said the trend of filing petitions challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) must stop, even as it decided to take up on Tuesday a batch of petitions filed by persons facing a probe in the alleged Chhattisgarh liquor scam case.
“You are challenging the vires of Section 50 and 63 of PMLA that is already decided by a three-judge bench of this Court in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary & Others v Union of India (decided in July 2022),” the vacation bench of justices Bela M Trivedi and Prashant Kumar Mishra said. “Where is the question of challenging the vires again when the 3-judge bench decision is binding?”
Section 50 of PMLA deals with the powers of the Enforcement Directorate to summon any person whose attendance is considered necessary to give evidence or produce any document during the course of any investigation or proceedings under the law. Such proceedings are akin to a judicial proceeding and whatever stated by the person is held admissible as evidence in a court. Section 63 provides for punishment for giving false testimony.
The observations came while hearing a batch of petitions filed by persons facing probes in connection with a money laundering investigation into a allotment of liquor licenses. The directorate began its probe into the alleged scam in selective grant of liquor licenses on a commission that surfaced out of a 2022 income-tax department charge sheet filed against Indian Administrative Service officer Anil Tuteja and others before a Delhi court.
Making observations in the case ahead of the hearing on Tuesday, the bench said, “One after the other, so many petitions are being filed. Why should we entertain them? Prima facie, it appears this has to be stopped.”
Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Siddharth Dave, appearing for some of the petitioners, told the court that the top court is already hearing a petition arising out of the same matter in Yash Tuteja vs Union of India. It was pointed out that in that case, the validity of PMLA sections 50 and 63 are under challenge and the court while issuing notice on April 28 agreed to consider this aspect and protected the accused from coercive action.
Seeking similar orders, another batch of cases linked to the same ED probe into the alleged Chhattisgarh liquor scam were heard on May 16. While issuing notice and granting protection from arrest, the court had directed all matters to come up on July 18. Dave told the court that the matters before the vacation bench could as well come up in July as the issues are similar.
Singhvi informed the court that in two of the petitions, the Enforcement Directorate filed an affidavit on Saturday and he required time to respond. He was appearing for Chhattisgarh excise commissioner Niranjan Das, apart from other accused facing the probe in the alleged liquor scam. He further pointed out that no predicate offence under income-tax proceedings exists for the ED to continue with its probe.
“Why should these matters be kept pending?” the court asked. “If notice is issued on the pending petitions, that is no ground to entertain these petitions.”
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Chhattisgarh government, which has moved an application to intervene on behalf of its officers being harassed by the ED, informed the court that the issue regarding validity of sections 50 and 63 under challenge in these proceedings are subject matter of a writ petition filed by Govind Singh, who is the Congress leader of opposition in Madhya Pradesh. A three-judge bench headed by justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul has issued notice on the petition on March 28 and the issue is pending.
In this petition by Singh, it was argued that sections 50 and 63 violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which protects a citizen from being compelled to be a witness against himself, and Article 21 dealing with an individual’s right to life and liberty, as the provisions in question require a person to speak the truth on being summoned by the ED and the same is admissible as evidence during a trial.
Interestingly, following the July 27 decision in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary in August, the top court admitted a review petition filed by member of Parliament Karti P Chidambaram (who is also an accused under PMLA) against the judgment paving way for a reconsideration of the draconian provisions.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, representing the ED, told the court that since notice has been issued in the Govind Singh matter, a new trend has started with petitions challenging PMLA sections 50 and 63 as these are the only two provisions challenged in the Congress leader’s petition. “It was filing of several petitions challenging a host of PMLA provisions in the first round that culminated in the Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary judgment. Now a second round has started with the filing of Govind Singh matter,” Mehta said. “After a judgment has come, this cannot be kept going.”
The bench agreed with this view and asked the advocates to argue the matter. As the entire Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary judgment was not produced on record, the court posted the matter for hearing on Tuesday and said: “We will decide this issue before us and other petitions (already pending in the top court) will follow the usual course.”
Recommended Topics