Centre tells Delhi High Court it will seek review of Supreme Court verdict in M3M case on supply of grounds of arrest to accused

The Central government is planning to file a review petition against the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Directorate of Enforcement vs Roop Bansal and Ors (M3M case) that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) must supply in writing the grounds of arrest to persons detained in cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta informed the Delhi High Court of the same on Monday during the hearing of petitions filed by NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha and Human Resources (HR) head Amit Chakraborty challenging their remand in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

The apex court had last week held in the M3M case that,

“To give true meaning and purpose to the constitutional and the statutory mandate of Section 19(1) of the Act of 2002 of informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest, we hold that it would be necessary, henceforth, that a copy of such written grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception.”

Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan, representing Purkayastha heavily relied on the judgment to argue that non-supply of grounds of arrest violates Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 

In response, SG Mehta submitted that there was a distinction between the provisions of PMLA and UAPA, and that the Pankaj Bansal judgment was delivered in a PMLA case.

The SG submitted that his colleague and Additional Solicitor General SV Raju was “rightly worried” that such direction from the Supreme Court may lead to complications in respect of arrests already made and, therefore, requested the apex court to use “henceforth” in its judgment.

Mehta added that the arrests in the NewsClick case were made on October 3, the very same day that the apex court pronounced the judgment in question, and that Delhi Police was not a party to that case. 

“Presuming that UAPA is governed by the Pankaj Bansal judgement, I would not fall foul of it because the arrest was made on October 3,” SG Mehta argued.

The judgment copy was uploaded on the Supreme Court website on October 4, he added.

On the first day of hearing of the petitions filed by Purkayashta and Chakraborty, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela drew parallels between Section 43D of UAPA and Section 19 of PMLA.

The Court observed that the failure to include grounds for arrest in the remand application appeared to be contrary to a Supreme Court judgment.

"Apparently, in the application for remand you don't disclose the grounds of arrest. There is a judgment of the Supreme Court staring in the eye," the judge remarked.