Supreme Court fixes July 31 for hearing pleas for review of 2022 verdict upholding powers of Enforcement Directorate

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 15, 2025) fixed July 31 for hearing a batch of pleas seeking review of the 2022 verdict that upheld the Directorate of Enforcement’s (ED) powers of arrest and attachment of property involved in money laundering, search and seizure under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi adjourned the matter, which was listed for hearing on Wednesday, to July 31 after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said he was not available.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, said he has no objection, if the matter is listed on July 31.

On May 7, the Supreme Court asked the Centre and the petitioners to frame issues to be adjudicated in challenge to a verdict which upheld the ED’s powers to arrest and attach property of the accused.

The Centre had contended that the hearing on the review petitions cannot go beyond the two specific issues flagged by the Bench which issued notice on the petitions in August 2022.

Mr. Sibal had earlier submitted that the matter was required to be referred to a larger Bench.

Mr. Mehta had contended that the Bench, which considered the review petitions for admission in August 2022, issued notice only on two aspects — the supply of the ECIR copy to the accused and reversal of burden of proof under Section 24 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The Supreme Court in July 2022 upheld the ED powers of arrest and attachment of property involved in money laundering, search and seizure under PMLA.

In August the same year, the Supreme Court agreed to hear pleas seeking review of its verdict and observed that two aspects “prima facie” required reconsideration.

Observing money laundering was a “threat” to the good functioning of a financial system world over, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of certain provisions of the PMLA, underlining it was not an “ordinary offence”.

The Supreme Court said authorities under the 2002 law were “not police officers as such” and the ECIR could not be equated with an FIR under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The supply of an ECIR copy in every case to the person concerned was not mandatory and it was enough if the ED, at the time of arrest, disclosed the grounds for it, it added.

The 2022 verdict had come on a batch of over 200 petitions questioning various provisions of the PMLA, a law the Opposition often claims is weaponised by the government to harass its political adversaries.

Section 45 of the PMLA, which deals with offences to be cognisable and non-bailable and have twin conditions for bail, is reasonable and does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness, the Supreme Court said.