Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
News Updates

Former J-K CM Mehbooba Mufti Moves Delhi High Court Challenging ED Summons Under PMLA

Shreya Agarwal
9 March 2021 1:38 PM GMT
Former J-K CM Mehbooba Mufti Moves Delhi High Court Challenging ED Summons Under PMLA
x

Former Chief Minister of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, Mehbooba Mufti has moved the Delhi High Court seeking quashing of summons issued to her by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). Mufti has claimed in her petition that she received the summons on her personal email ID from the official email ID of the Assistant Director,...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?
Former Chief Minister of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, Mehbooba Mufti has moved the Delhi High Court seeking quashing of summons issued to her by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

Mufti has claimed in her petition that she received the summons on her personal email ID from the official email ID of the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate on Mar 5 under Sections 50(2) and 50(3) of the PMLA and that it refers to an annexure which "has not been sent to her, and therefore she is not aware of its contents."

She has further objected to the fact that she has not been informed if she is being summoned as an accused or as a witness and further not been informed of what she is being summoned in connection with, and the scheduled offence under the PMLA which gave rise to the proceedings in respect of which the summons has been issued to her.

She has also challenged the vires of Section 50, and incidental provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 for being "unfairly discriminatory, bereft of safeguards, and violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution" and has cited various judgments laid down by the Supreme Court in different cases.

She argues that the impugned Section 50 empowers the 'authority' i.e., officers of the Enforcement Directorate, to summon any person to give evidence on produced records and all persons summoned are bound to answer questions put to them, and to produce the documents as required by the ED officers, failing which they can be penalised under the PMLA.

Further, Section 66 of the PMLA provides that information – and therefore, also a compelled statement under Section 50) shall be shared with other agencies. Logically, this means that such a compelled statement may be used for offences under other laws as well, while being treated as 'evidence', thus effectively countering the right to protection against self-incrimination under Art 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

She states that none of the protections against compelled self-incrimination whether under the Constitution or under any other statutes (Sections 161(2), 162 of the CrPC, and Sections 25, 26 of the Evidence Act) or any other safeguards govern Section 50 of the PMLA thereby making it arbitrary and discriminatory.


Next Story
Share it