After the Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) powers relating to arrest, attachment of property involved in money laundering, search and seizure under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Ghelot said the verdit was "disappointing and worrying".
Taking to Twitter, the senior Congress leader wrote, "The pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the rights of PML Act and ED is disappointing and worrying."
"A dictatorial atmosphere has prevailed in the country for the last few years and after this decision, the possibility of political misuse of ED by the Centre will increase further," he added.
Senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh said the decision will have "far reaching impliations for our democracy, especially when governments are anchored in political vendetta".
Meanwhile, observing that it is a common experience world over that money laundering can be a "threat" to the good functioning of a financial system, the apex court upheld the validity of certain provisions of the PMLA, underlining it is not an "ordinary offence".
A bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar said authorities under the 2002 Act are "not police officers as such" and the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) cannot be equated with an FIR under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The bench, also comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and C T Ravikumar, said supply of an ECIR copy in every case to the person concerned is not mandatory and it is enough if ED, at the time of arrest, discloses the grounds of such arrest.
The petitioners in the case had raised the issue of the contents of ECIR not being disclosed to the accused.
The court was hearing a clutch of over 200 petitions filed by individuals and other entities questioning various provisions of the PMLA, a law which the opposition has often claimed has been weaponised by the government to harass its political adversaries.
The court said section 45 of the PMLA, which deals with offences to be cognisable and non-bailable and have twin conditions for bail, is reasonable and does not suffer from vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness.
"The challenge to the constitutional validity of section 19 (power to arrest) of the 2002 Act is also rejected. There are stringent safeguards provided in section 19. The provision does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness," the bench said in its 545-page judgement.
It said section 5 of the Act, which relates to attachment of property involved in money laundering, is constitutionally valid.
"It provides for a balancing arrangement to secure the interests of the person as also ensures that the proceeds of crime remain available to be dealt with in the manner provided by the 2002 Act," the bench said.
(With PTI inputs)
(To receive our E-paper on whatsapp daily, please click here. To receive it on Telegram, please click here. We permit sharing of the paper's PDF on WhatsApp and other social media platforms.)
