Secretary of Anil Deshmukh moves Bombay High Court challenging provisions of PMLA, seeks quashing of ED corruption case

Sanjeev Palande, the personal secretary of former Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh has approached Bombay High Court challenging the validity of certain provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) [Sanjeev Palande v. State of Maharashtra]..He has also sought quashing of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with a money laundering case registered against him..ED had initiated probe against Deshmukh and his associates after the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed an FIR following a Court-directed enquiry into allegations of corruption and misuse of his official position.In May 11, 2021, ED registered an ECIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act and criminal conspiracy against Deshmukh and his associates.On June 26, 2021, Palande was arrested and remanded to ED custody for 7 days, post which he was remanded to judicial custody.ED also filed its prosecution complaint (which is akin to a chargesheet) before the Special Court in Mumbai..Palande has approached the High court seeking quashing of the ECIR on the ground that he was falsely implicated in the case and ED failed to make out any offence against him. "For an offence of money laundering to be investigated, the existence of "proceeds of crime" is required, which cannot be established unless the crime is proved which is still being investigated and hence the ECIR is baseless" his petition emphasised. .Palande also added that his arrest was in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as ED had merely issued notice to him for his presence based on suspicion and then arrested him without giving any substantial reasons."ED has mechanically arrested the petitioner, based on the ECIR merely on the basis of an FIR registered by the CBI, without any basis of the commission of any scheduled offence," the petition stated. .He added that he was arrested in the case based on a statement of dismissed cop Sachin Waze, who had admittedly confessed that he had extorted money which is proceeds of the crime, and yet was not arraigned as an accused in the present case. .Palande contended that CBI and ED were both attempting to investigate the same case based on the same cause of action without any justified cause and this amounts to double jeopardy which is against Constitutional rights. .Importantly, Palande also challenged the Constitutional validity of certain provisions of the PMLA - Sections 19 (power to arrest), 50 (power of authorities pertaining to summons, documents, etc and 63 (punishment for false information).He submitted that the Sections are ultra-vires the Constitution and federal structure of the Constitution and the ED continued to show complete disregard for rule of law by acting in violation of the fundamental rights of the accused. .Palande submitted that Sections 50 and 63 attack a summoned person with a double edged sword - by compelling production of documents which was self-incriminating and punishing for perjury or silence.The Sections in essence, compel a person to give evidence thus denying the fundamental right to silence, the petition pleaded.