Supreme Court to examine validity of Sections 50 and 63 of PMLA; seeks response from Central government

The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought the response of the Central government and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on a plea challenging the validity of Sections 50 and 63 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) [Govind Singh vs Union of India and anr]..A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Aravind Kumar issued notice on a plea by Madhya Pradesh Congress leader Dr Govind Singh, the State's Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Assembly.Notice was also issued on the interim relief sought by Singh with respect to quashing of a summons issued by the ED against him.Section 50 of the PMLA deals with powers regarding summons, production of documents and giving evidence etc. Section 63 deals with punishment for furnishing false information or for failure to provide information..It was argued that since PMLA is a criminal law, it should come with the safeguards provided to those being summoned, on the same lines as provided in the Criminal Procedure Code.Absence of the same amounts to violation of fundamental rights, it was contended."Provisions of Section 50 PMLA are in direct contravention of the Fundamental Right against self-incrimination enshrined under Article 20(3) of the Constitution," the petitioner submitted.The petitioner pointed out that in his case, he is unaware of the scope of the probe or the nature of allegations against him since a copy of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) was not shared with him. Such practices enable a 'roving and fishing enquiry' that is impermissible in law, it was argued. Further, the provisions do not allow challenge of initiation of criminal proceedings."The powers under the PMLA are not to prevent public servants from fulfilling their duties or for the purposes of stifling the opposition," it was submitted. The 'cryptic' summons issued to Singh are part of a larger ploy to muzzle opposition leaders and coerce, harass and intimidate them, it was contended..The summons issued are also in violation of his fundamental rights to free speech and personal liberty, the petitioner said..A person summoned under PMLA faces the risk of being arrested at any point of giving his statement, it was further highlighted..Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal with advocate Sumeer Sodhi (whom the plea was filed through) appeared for the petitioner..The Supreme Court is already seized of a review petition (in which it has issued notice), challenging its July 27, 2022 verdict in in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors v. Union of India upholding the validity of provisions of the PMLA.The July 27 verdict saw stringent bail conditions in money-laundering cases being upheld, in variance with earlier Supreme Court decisions.The Court had upheld the validity of Sections 3 (definition of money laundering), 5 (attachment of property), 8(4) [taking possession of attached property), 17 (search and seizure), 18 (search of persons), 19 (powers of arrest), 24 (reverse burden of proof), 44 (offences triable by special court), 45 (offences being cognizable and non-bailable and twin conditions for grant of bail by court) and 50 (statements made to ED officials).The judgment under review had also held that the supply of ECIR under PMLA proceedings is not mandatory, since it is an internal document and cannot be equated to a First Information Report (FIR).The Court had while issuing notice on the review petition against the judgment, orally observed that the following aspects of the July 27 verdict may need a 'relook': - Providing the accused with a copy of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR)- Reversal of presumption of innocence.The Supreme Court had also allowed an open court hearing in the review petition filed by Congress lawmaker Karti Chidambaram.Another three-judge bench had also said that the ratio of the PMLA verdict with regard to Section 8(4) of PMLA has left scope for arbitrary application..The July 2022 judgment was panned by many in the legal community as denuding the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.Retired Supreme Court judge Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman had earlier this month criticised the 3-judge bench decision upholding various stringent provisions of the Act, particularly the bail provision.Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) UU Lalit has also echoed such views, highlighting that in Indian criminal jurisprudence, the principle is not guilty, until proven to be guilty.[Read order]