State of Chhattisgarh Withdraws Plea Filed in Supreme Court Challenging Section 50 of PMLA and ED's Powers

Update: 2023-09-27 08:47 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article
story

The State of Chhattisgarh on Wednesday withdrew a writ petition filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and the powers of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) conferred by the anti-money laundering statute. A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti was informed today by a counsel appearing for...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The State of Chhattisgarh on Wednesday withdrew a writ petition filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and the powers of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) conferred by the anti-money laundering statute. 

A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti was informed today by a counsel appearing for the petitioner-state that he had instructions to withdraw Chhattisgarh government's plea. The petition had been filed through VMZ Associates. In response, the bench pronounced a short order dismissing the plea as withdrawn -

"Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has instructions to withdraw the present writ petition. In view of the statement made, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn."

Earlier this year, a bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul agreed to hear a plea filed by Congress leader Govind Singh challenging summonses from the Enforcement Directorate despite allegedly not being a part of any criminal proceedings. In his writ petition, Singh challenged Sections 50 and 63 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, arguing that these provisions allowing ED officers to summon individuals and record their statements that are legally required to be truthful, violated Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution. Singh also contended that the legality of these sections should be addressed by a larger constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, saying that the issues pertaining to the legality of Sections 50 and 63 were not considered by the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary bench.

In related news, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul yesterday revealed that a special bench had been constituted by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud to hear the petitions seeking a review of the 2022 Vijay Madanlal Choudhary judgment, which upheld the constitutional validity of the PMLA provisions relating to the powers of the Enforcement Directorate of arrest, attachment, and search and seizure, as well as others dealing with the presumption of innocence, stringent bail conditions, etc. The special bench, which is set to begin hearing the clutch of review petitions from October 18, will consist of Justices Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, and Bela Trivedi.

Case Details

State of Chhattisgarh v. Enforcement Directorate, Ranchi & Ors. | Diary No. 8227 of 2023

Full View
Tags:    

Similar News