The Supreme Court of India.
Credit: PTI File Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday deferred to August 28 the hearing on the question whether its 2022 verdict upholding the Enforcement Directorate's powers to arrest and attach property under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act required any reconsideration.
As the hearing commenced, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Enforcement Directorate (ED), told a three-judge bench headed by Justice Surya Kant that a review has been listed suddenly and he needs some time.
"This has come up suddenly. We need some time to prepare. We came to know that matter has been listed for hearing late last night. Please have this at a later date," Mehta requested the bench also comprising Justices C T Ravikumar and Ujjal Bhuyan.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, said the 2022 judgment is wrong and it needs reconsideration.
Agreeing to adjourn the matter, the top court assured the parties in the case that it would give sufficient time to argue their case and posted it for hearing on August 28.
The court was hearing a batch of pleas seeking reconsideration of the July 27, 2022, verdict of a three-judge bench on certain parameters.
In its 2022 verdict, the Supreme Court had upheld the ED's powers of arrest and attachment of property involved in money laundering, search and seizure under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
In August 2022, the top court had agreed to hear a plea seeking a review of its July 2022 verdict and observed that two aspects -- not providing an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and reversal of the presumption of innocence -- "prima facie" required reconsideration.
The Supreme Court had in its 2022 judgment said an ECIR filed by the ED cannot be equated with an FIR, and providing a copy of it to the person concerned in every case is not mandatory. The presumption of innocence is a traditional principle of Indian criminal law where an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The reversal of presumption of innocence, on the other hand, makes it incumbent upon the accused to prove his innocence.
In its judgment, the apex court had upheld the validity of certain provisions of the PMLA, underlining it was not an "ordinary offence".
The bench had said authorities under the Act were "not police officers as such" and the ECIR cannot be equated with an FIR under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
It had said supply of an ECIR copy in every case to the person concerned was not mandatory and it was enough if the ED, at the time of arrest, discloses the grounds of such arrest.