At least 2 PMLA clauses need relook: SC

A Supreme Court bench issued notices on a petition seeking review of a ruling by the top court last month that upheld the constitutional validity of key provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The three-member bench said Thursday that "prima facie" it was of the view that "at least two issues require reconsideration". These include providing a copy of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) - equivalent to a first information report - to the accused and the "reversal of presumption of innocence," it said.

The bench was led by chief justice NV Ramana, who's retiring August 26.


When senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, counsel for the review petitioner, insisted that the entire judgement needed reconsideration, the chief justice orally remarked that his two fellow judges "are not agreeable to" having a relook at the other provisions.

Petitioner Granted Interim Protection
The other two judges were Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar who were also part of the bench led by AM Khanwilkar that had delivered the Supreme Court judgement on PMLA a month ago. Khanwilkar retired the next day.

Ramana orally said Thursday that prima facie the bench was of the view that the review be limited to the two grounds cited above. But the written order issued later in the day said "prima facie at least two of the issues raised in the instant petition require consideration".

Seeking a response from the Centre, the bench extended interim protection to the accused, being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for four weeks. These accused had petitioned the Supreme Court challenging the key provisions of PMLA. The review petition was filed by Congress MP Karti Chidambaram.

"We are completely in support of prevention of black money," Ramana observed. "The object is noble... We are not opposing acts of bringing back black money. We are not doubting the object of the (PMLA) but prima facie two aspects (of the SC judgement) need reconsideration."

Counterargument

Solicitor general Tushar Mehta opposed the review plea. PMLA "is not a standalone provision" of India but "part of a larger global structure and is in tune with global structure," he argued. "Our law (PMLA) is in tune not only with the global structure but also with the constitution (of the country). Any deviation will send India back to a position from which it will not get financial assistance (from the global structure)... It will have global repercussions."