Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal stated in the Supreme Court on Wednesday that authorities implementing the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) act arbitrarily except procedural restraint.
The Division Bench of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and C.T. Ravikumar heard the batch of petitions on the Interpretation of PMLA, 2002 and adjourned it for tomorrow.
Nearly 200 petitioners have challenged the powers of investigation corporations that deal with financial offences such as the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) and the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). These encompass petitions filed utilizing numerous politicians accused of cash launderings, such as Lok Sabha Member Karti Chidambaram, former Punjab MP Sarwan Singh Phillaur and former Jammu and Kashmir CM Mehbooba Mufti.
Senior Advocate Sibal submitted that when an accused is arrested and the fabric is no longer disclosed to the stated accused, the provision of bail is defeated, as solely grounds for arrest are disclosed, as a result, making it nearly not possible to acquire bail. Subsequently, Sibal took the court docket via an array of judgements to complement his arguments.
Justice Khanwilkar: “Sibal, simply questioning how many hours of judicial hours have been invested in this case, wondering of exceptional High Courts, it’s a lawyer’s paradise.”
“Yes, my lord, it is additionally a bureaucrat’s paradise,” responded Sibal in a lighter vein.
Sibal submitted that except there being procedural restraint, the authorities act arbitrarily and rested his case utilizing making the following statement.
Sibal: “We have created a Frankenstein monster… it’s like a horse except for reins.”
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra submitted that he seeks to tackle two issues, one being if provisions of CrPC need to be relevant to offences underneath PMLA and the difference being bail restriction being an arbitrary obstacle to liberty.
Luthra argued that when a courtroom offers with the ambit of PMLA statute it ought to do so, about Article 21 as it offers with curtailment of non-public liberty. He cautioned that there has to be a process set up via law, which may want to be a statutory regulation or delegated regulation succesful in passing the constitutional test.
He enumerated a variety of provisions of CrPC 1898, which is a pre-Constitution law however has myriad provisions supplying safeguards whilst dealing with an arrest.
Section 56: Deputation of junior officers for an arrest.
Section 60: Production earlier than a magistrate.
Section 61: Production inside 24 hours.
Section 62: Reporting of arrest and apprehension to the magistrate.
Chapter 4: Section 154-176, dealing with arrest and powers of police
Section 491: Power to problem route in nature of Habeas Corpus for private liberty.
Siddharth Luthra: ”We are in a law-less regime if this statute is allowed to stand, bail before criticism has grown to be an impossibility as I can’t argue towards what I do no longer know.”
Luthra claimed that simply due to the fact of its complaints technique doesn’t suggest that investigating officers are no longer police officers. According to him, even though the investigating officer is no longer a police officer however performs all features of a police officer.
He brought that the then Finance Minister P. Chidambaram in 2004 on the flooring of the House had criticized PMLA and had admitted that there used to be a lacuna in law. Chidambaram, whose son is one of the plaintiffs in one of the linked matters, stated on May 6, 2005:
“While we have been inspecting the query of notifying the Act, I observed that there had been positive lacunae in the Act. I will be apologetic to say that now not sufficient homework had been executed in the definitions and the division of duty and authority. So, in session with the Ministry of Law, we got here to the conclusion that these lacunae had to be removed. Broadly, the motives for the change are the following.
Under the current provisions in Section forty-five of the Act, every offence is cognizable. If an offence is cognizable, then any police officer in India can arrest a perpetrator except warrant. At the equal time, underneath Section 19 of the Act, solely a Director or a Deputy Director or an Assistant Director or any different officer authorised, may also arrest an offender. There used to be a struggle between these two provisions. Under Section 45(1)(b) of the Act, the Special Court shall now not take the focus of any offence punishable below Section four besides upon a grievance made in writing with the aid of the Director or any different officer approved through the Central Government. So, what would manifest to an arrest made by using any police officer in the case of a cognizable offence? Which is the court docket that will strive the offence? There have been inconsistencies in these provisions.”
The courtroom will resume the be counted the following day for Luthra to conclude his arguments.