The Supreme Court has recently agreed to examine the constitutional validity of Sections 50 and 63 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. Section 50 of the PMLA deals with summons, production of documents, and providing evidence, among other things. Section 63 addresses the punishments for providing incorrect information or failing to provide information.
The petitioner, MP leader of the opposition Govind Singh, claimed that the agency’s unrestricted power was being misused to silence opposition leaders across the country.
Govind Singh has moved the Supreme Court, claiming that some provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 violated the accused’s fundamental rights.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal and lawyer Sumeer Sodhi, representing the petitioner told a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Aravind Kumar that the Supreme Court had upheld the validity of the provision last year but urged that the issue needed to be reconsidered. The petitioner claimed that the issue must be resolved because the provisions allow “the ED to conduct a roving and fishing inquiry.”
They argued that the court should decide whether an individual summoned to join an investigation under Section 50 of the PMLA is entitled to be informed whether she/he is being prima facie considered as a witness or an accused, and whether she/he should be informed about the case for which she/he was summoned.
“The legislature, in its wisdom, while enacting the Indian Evidence Act, the CrPC, incorporated the safeguard to ensure that the statement made during the course of investigation would not be an admissible piece of evidence in the trial of the case, whereas the said protection is not available under the provisions of the PMLA. The provisions of Sections 50 and 63 are in direct conflict with the fundamental right against self-incrimination enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which is inextricably linked with the right to a fair trial under Article 21,” the petition stated.
Following a brief hearing, the court issued notice to the Centre and the ED, instructing them to submit their answers within three weeks. The petitioner was given two weeks to submit a counter-response, and the case was scheduled for further hearing in May.
“Section 50 of the Act not only enables ED officers to record confessions or incriminating statements, to be proved against the maker, but also, in fact, extends to legally mandating that such confession or incriminating statement be made under the threat of legal sanctions provided under Section 63 of the Act,” the petition stated.
“Even without a copy of the ECIR, the person being summoned cannot determine whether the questions posed to him/her are in relation to the ECIR under investigation, the scheduled offences, or any other unrelated transaction,” the plea further stated.
