Is PMLA review plea ‘appeal in disguise’? SC to examine | Indian News

NEW DELHI: Supreme Courtwhile fixing a batch of petitions seeking review of its 2022 order on validity of various provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act2002, has observed whether review petition is an appeal in disguise.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant, CT Ravikumar and Ujjal Bhuyan asked whether review proceedings would partake the character of an appeal even if a judgment was “seriously erroneous”. “Can this partake character of appeal? It is to be seen,” the bench said.
The issue is of significance because of limited jurisdiction of review hearing which can be entertained only in case of error in verdict.
The petitioners are seeking re-examination of the apex court’s July 27, 2022, order which upheld the stringent regime prescribed for money laundering offenses and vast powers enjoyed by the Enforcement Directorate, allowing the agency to arrest people and conduct search and seizure even when no complaint has been filed, making statements made before the agency admissible in court while also putting the burden on the accused to prove their innocence.
Interestingly, within a month of the order, the court decided to re-examine the verdict and issued notice to the central government in Aug 2022. It said “at least two of the issues raised in the instant petition require consideration.”
In a shot in the arm for the anti-money laundering agency, a bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar had validated the twin bail conditions as per which the accused could be granted bail only if there were reasonable grounds for the court to believe that he was not guilty and was unlikely to commit an offense while on bail.
The provisions, which set the bar for bail very high in PMLA cases, was declared invalid by a two-judge SC bench in 2017 on the grounds of being discriminatory but was reintroduced into the law a year later. In the 2022 order, however, a 3-judge bench court justified the twin conditions by saying they were also part of other laws which had stood the test of time and constitutional validity.
The court had also said that it was not mandatory for ED to provide a copy of Enforcement Case Information Report, the equivalent of FIR in PMLA cases, to the accused, and it was enough if ED disclosed the grounds of arrest at the time of arrest .