Were you in opposition when PMLA was enforced in 2002? Justice Bela Trivedi asks Kapil Sibal

Justice Bela M Trivedi of the Supreme Court and Senior Advocate and former Congress leader Kapil Sibal shared an intense exchange today during the hearing of the case concerning the validity of provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA)..During the hearing, Justice Trivedi asked Sibal, who was arguing against the law, whether he was part of the opposition or the ruling political party when the PMLA was brought into force.The PMLA was passed by Parliament in 2002, but was brought into force only in 2005, when the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance was in power at the Centre.Sibal was then part of the ruling coalition.."I have been a legislator for 35 years, even in Opposition...Have never seen such a law," Sibal said "In 2002, (2005) you were in Opposition?" asked Justice Trivedi."It may have been enacted and amended by one party, but we never envisioned it would be enforced in this way. What my ladyship is asking is moot," Sibal replied."Only asking if you were in Opposition that year..." Justice Trivedi persisted."The impact is enormous. It affects the polity of our country because of the extensive powers it grants, it is dangerous," Sibal maintained..Specifically on Section 50 of the PMLA, which deals with powers regarding summons, production of documents and giving evidence etc, Justice Trivedi asked how mere issue of summons was in violation of the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution."In summons, you may be called as a witness also. Maybe you know something about the accused. How is summons violation of Article 21? Is life and liberty deprived when you are asked to give information?" she asked."But I must know what I am called for. Liberty is at the heart of the CrPC and when we are called under Section 161 of the Code Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for statement, we are called as witness. But here I am completely at sea, because I cannot exercise my constitutional rights, because I do not know why I am called and I can be arrested," Sibal replied..The Bench, which also comprises Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sanjiv Khanna, was hearing a batch of petitions challenging PMLA provisions..In November 2017, a Bench of Justices Kaul and Rohinton Nariman had struck down Section 45(1) of the PMLA to the extent that it imposed two additional conditions for grant of bail to money laundering accused.However, this decision was overruled in July 2022 by a Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. Union of India.In that ruling, the Court upheld the validity of several other provisions of the Act including 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 Court also held that the supply of Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) under PMLA proceedings is not mandatory since ECIR is an internal document and cannot be equated to a First Information Report (FIR).Further, it rejected the argument about proportionality of punishment under PMLA with respect to scheduled offences as wholly "unfounded".The 2022 ruling invited vehement criticism and led to several review applications being filed.The same are pending before the top court.Meanwhile, new petitions were filed challenging PMLA which were heard by the top court today.