The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the validity of some provisions of the Enforcement Directorate and PMLA. The Court held that it is not necessary to issue an ECIR to the concerned person in all cases.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, upheld the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 regarding powers of arrest, attachment, search and seizure given to the Enforcement Directorate.

The court upheld the constitutionality of the provisions of Sections 5, 8(4), 15, 17 and 19 of the PMLA, relating to the ED’s powers of arrest, attachment, search and seizure.

The court also upheld the contrary burden of proof 19 of the PMLA, which would relate to the ED’s power to arrest, attach, search and seize. The court also upheld the contrary burden of proof under Section 24 of the Act and held that it had “reasonable relation” to the subject matter of the Act.

ED officers are not police officers and ECIR is not an FIR

The court also directed that the ED officers are not “police officers” and therefore the statements recorded by them under Section 50 of the Act cannot be affected by Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which guarantees the fundamental right against self-incrimination. Punishment of fine or imprisonment for furnishing false information cannot be confirmed as compulsion by a statement. Section 50 proceedings are in the nature of an inquiry, not an inquiry.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the validity of some provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and said that it is not mandatory to provide an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) to the concerned person in all matters or cases.

If the Enforcement Directorate (ED) discloses the basis at the time of arrest, it is sufficient, said a bench headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar.

The apex court gave its judgment on a petition regarding the interpretation of certain provisions of the PMLA.