The Supreme Court has reconstituted the bench that will hear pending review petitions challenging parts of its landmark 2022 judgment on the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The matter will now be considered by a three-judge bench headed by Justice Surya Kant, with Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana as the other members.
The bench will examine the limited issues for which the Supreme Court had earlier allowed a review of the 2022 ruling, including questions surrounding the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and the burden of proof placed on accused persons under the PMLA.
Why was the PMLA bench changed?
The case was earlier being heard by a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh.
The Chief Justice observed that retaining the earlier combination would have required changes to three other existing benches. The bench was therefore reconstituted after the parties agreed to the new arrangement.
The development sets the stage for fresh consideration of the pending review petitions against the 2022 ruling.
What did the Supreme Court decide in 2022?
The review proceedings relate to the Supreme Court’s July 27, 2022 judgment delivered by a three-judge bench headed by then Justice AM Khanwilkar.
In that judgment, the court upheld the constitutional validity of several important provisions of the PMLA and affirmed extensive powers available to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in money-laundering investigations.
These included powers relating to arrest, search, seizure and attachment of property allegedly connected with money laundering.
The judgment became particularly significant because of its interpretation of procedural safeguards available to people facing PMLA proceedings.
ECIR disclosure and burden of proof under review
One of the key questions before the new bench concerns whether an accused person is entitled to receive a copy of the ECIR, which is an internal document prepared by the ED during a money-laundering investigation.
The review petitions also challenge the so-called reverse burden of proof under Section 24 of the PMLA.
Under this provision, in specified circumstances, the accused may be required to establish that the proceeds of crime are not involved in money laundering.
The petitioners have sought reconsideration of the interpretation given to these provisions in the 2022 judgment.
Why Section 45 matters in PMLA cases
The review proceedings also touch upon the stringent bail framework under Section 45(1) of the PMLA.
The provision treats offences under the law as cognisable and non-bailable and imposes what are commonly known as the “twin conditions” for bail.
Under these conditions, the prosecution must be given an opportunity to oppose the bail application. The court must also be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the offence and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.
The petitioners have questioned the impact of these strict requirements on the rights of accused persons.
Review of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary ruling
The petitions also seek reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v Union of India, the case in which the court upheld several major provisions of the PMLA.
However, the review is not an open-ended reconsideration of the entire 2022 judgment. The Supreme Court had earlier permitted review on specific and limited questions.
The newly constituted bench will now take up those pending review petitions and determine whether the court’s earlier interpretation of the disputed provisions requires any modification.
The proceedings could have wider implications for money-laundering investigations, the powers exercised by the ED and the procedural safeguards available to people facing action under the PMLA.
