The Supreme Court on Wednesday, 22 July, passed their order in the batch of petitions concerning the the interpretation of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The Court, in their order, said:
Section 5 (powers regarding attachment of property involved in money-laundering cases), of the PMLA is constitutionally valid. The procedural safeguards provided herein are effective measures.
Challenge to validity of Section 19 (Enforcement Directorate’s power to arrest), rejected as they are “stringent safeguards.”
Section 45 (cognisable and non-bailable nature of offence) of the amended act is reasonable and has direct nexus with the object of the Act.
"Twin-conditions" for bail under Section 45 of the Act upheld, and the Parliament is competent to amend Section 45 to weed out the defects pointed out in the Supreme Court judgment in the Nikesh Tharachand Shah case (which had struck down the twin conditions).
Authorities under this Act are not police officers as such.
Section 63 ( punishment for false information or failure to give information) of the Act does not suffer from arbitrariness.
Supplying of Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) is not mandatory and disclosure of reasons during arrest is enough.
ECIR cannot be equated with FIR.
Challenge to PMLA’s reversal of burden of proof rejected