Supreme Court to hear review plea against PMLA judgment on August 25

The emblem of the Supreme Court is seen on a gate of the court in New Delhi.

The Supreme Court on August 24 admitted a petition seeking a review of its judgment upholding the stringent provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The court has listed the review petition for oral arguments on August 25.

A three-judge bench has allowed for the review petition to be heard in open court, as per the order passed today. This order was passed after an in-chamber deliberation by the bench.

As is protocol, review petitions at the first instance are discussed and deliberated on by the concerned bench in-chamber, which is not in an open court. The bench may admit the review petition if a case is made for such reconsideration. Thereafter, the case may be heard in open court.

The review petition against the July 27 judgment was filed by Congress leader Karti P Chidambaram, who was one among the over 240 petitioners in the original case.

On July 2 7, a three-judge bench headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar held as valid and constitutional the provisions concerning powers of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) regarding arrest, search and seizure, and summons.

Also Read | MC Explains | What the PMLA judgment means for powers of ED

The judgment also held that non-supply of Enforcement Complaint Information Report (ECIR) to the accused is valid. The court drew a distinction between ECIR and First Information Report (FIR) and said that the former is an internal document of the ED and cannot be equated with FIR.

While under the regular criminal procedure, supply of FIR to an accused is mandatory, the same cannot be said about ECIR under PMLA proceedings, the judgment held.

Significantly, the court also said that any confessional statements made by an accused before an investigating officer under PMLA are admissible as evidence before the court.

The court said that the provision under PMLA that allows the same is not hit by the constitutional right against self-incrimination guaranteed under Article 20. The judgment reasoned that ED officials are not police officers and as such statements made before them will not attract protection guaranteed under Article 20.

Besides upholding the stringent provision, the court also clarified that if an accused is acquitted or discharged in an offence on the basis of which a money-laundering case was filed, then the PMLA proceedings will also fail to survive.

The judgment will now be reconsidered by the Supreme Court.