The Supreme Court today issued notice in a petition filed by Congress leader Jairam Ramesh assailing the fact that amendments to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) since 2015 have been made through Money Bills..Jairam Ramesh approached the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court refused to entertain his plea last year..At the outset, the Bench of Justices SA Bobde and BR Gavai asked how Ramesh was affected by these amendments. Senior Counsel P Chidambaram argued that Ramesh was one of the petitioners in the Puttaswamy case, and thus has the locus to challenge this aspect before the courts. Ramesh was also a Member of Parliament when the amendments were made, he said..Chidambaram further argued that the amendments brought to the Act prior to 2015 were introduced as ordinary bills. However, since the government changed in 2014, amendments to the Act have been introduced as Money Bills, in contravention of constitutional provisions. He stated that the PMLA and its provisions have nothing to do with the Consolidated Fund of India..The Bench went on to issue notice in the case..The amendments were brought via Sections 145 to 151 of the Finance Act 2015, Section 232 of the Finance Act 2016, and Section 208 of the Finance Act 2018..The petition filed in the Delhi High Court had alleged that the passage of the amendments through the Finance Acts illegally stripped the Rajya Sabha of its constitutional legislative authority..Through the 2015 Finance Act, the definition of “proceeds of crime” was expanded and the Deputy Director was empowered to attach property. The power of the Adjudicating Authority was also transferred to Special Courts..Further, the Appellate Tribunal established under Section 25 of PMLA was replaced by the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976, and the structure of the Appellate Authority was also modified..Before the Delhi High Court, the Centre had challenged Ramesh’s locus to challenge the amendments, since he was not an affected party..Read Order:
