The Supreme Court on Wednesday tentatively fixed September 18 for hearing the review of two aspects of July 27, 2022, judgment upholding the stringent provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 lo0moted to two aspects – denial of ECIR by the ED while arresting an accused in an alleged money laundering case and the presumption of innocence.

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said that the matter would be tentatively listed on September 18, following a mention by the senior advocate Kapil Sibal.

The plea for the review of July 27, 2022, judgment upholding the stringent provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – which in the legal circles is known by the name of the main petitioner Vijay Madanlal Choudhary – is listed before a bench of Justice Surya Kant, Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.

The matter could not be taken up today as Justice Ravikumar was not sitting on the bench. And the matter had to be relisted.

The stringent provisions of the PMLA were upheld on July 27, 20223, a bench comprising Justice A.M. Khanwilkar (since retired and presently serving as Lokpal), Justice Dinesh Maheshwari (since retired) and Justice C.T. Ravikumar.

The top court by its July 27, 2022, judgment had upheld the validity of various stringent provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act empowering the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to arrest, provisionally attach properties suspected to be the proceeds of crime.

The two aspects arising from July 27, 2022, judgment that will be considered by the bench headed by Justice Surya Kant includes denial of ECIR by the Directorate of Enforcement while arresting an accused and presumption of innocence of an accused till convicted.

Earlier a top court bench comprising Chief Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari (both since retired) and Justice C.T. Ravikumar had on August 25, 2022, framed these two issues arising from the petitions seeking a relook at the July 27, 2022, judgment.

On July 27, 2022, the top court had said that the amended provisions of PMLA Act does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness and unconstitutionality.

Observing that money laundering is an offense against the sovereignty and integrity of the country, the top court had said, “The classification or grouping of offences (including minor compoundable offences) for treating the same as relevant for constituting an offence of money laundering is a matter of legislative policy… the Parliament in its wisdom having perceived the cumulative effect of the process or activity concerning the proceeds of crime generated from such criminal activities as being likely to pose threat to the economic stability, sovereignty and integrity of the country and thus, grouped them together for reckoning it as an offence of money laundering.”