The Supreme Court's judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022) is a landmark decision that significantly impacts India's anti-money laundering framework under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
⚖️ Key Highlights of the Judgment
1. Constitutional Validity of PMLA Provisions
The Court upheld several provisions of the PMLA, affirming the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) extensive powers:
-
Sections 5, 8(4), 15, 17, 19: These sections grant the ED authority to provisionally attach property, conduct searches and seizures, and arrest individuals without prior judicial approval.
Section 24: Establishes a reverse burden of proof, requiring the accused to demonstrate that the alleged proceeds of crime are untainted.
-
Section 45: Reintroduces stringent bail conditions, known as the "twin conditions," which necessitate that the accused prove prima facie innocence and assure the court of not committing further offenses if granted bail.
-
Section 50: Empowers the ED to summon individuals and record statements, which are admissible in court, despite concerns about potential self-incrimination.
2. Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR)
The Court ruled that the ECIR, analogous to an FIR in regular criminal proceedings, is an internal document of the ED and need not be furnished to the accused. This decision has raised concerns about transparency and the accused's ability to prepare an effective defense. Lawful Legal
3. Distinction Between ED and Police Authorities
The judgment clarified that ED officials are not considered "police officers" under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Consequently, statements made to ED officials are admissible in evidence, and the procedural safeguards applicable to police investigations under the CrPC do not extend to ED inquiries.
๐งพ Criticisms and Concerns
The judgment has been met with several criticisms:
-
Dilution of Fundamental Rights: Critics argue that the reversal of the burden of proof and stringent bail conditions infringe upon the presumption of innocence and the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
-
Potential for Misuse: The broad powers granted to the ED, coupled with limited judicial oversight, raise concerns about potential misuse for political or other extraneous purposes.
-
Lack of Transparency: Non-disclosure of the ECIR to the accused hampers the ability to mount an effective defense, potentially violating principles of natural justice.
๐ Pending Review
A review petition is currently pending before the Supreme Court, focusing on two primary issues:
-
Disclosure of ECIR: Whether the ED is obligated to provide the ECIR to the accused.
-
Presumption of Innocence: The constitutional validity of the reversal of the presumption of innocence under the PMLA.
The outcome of this review could have significant implications for the balance between empowering investigative agencies and safeguarding individual rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment