Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking 'Authoritative Interpretation' Of Section 66 Of PMLA

The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to entertain a PIL seeking “authoritative interpretation” of Section 66 of PMLA, alleging that ED is pressurizing the police and CBI to file FIRs under predicate offence on the basis of the information shared by it with the agencies.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora granted liberty to the petitioners, Ashok Kumar Singh and another individual, to raise the issue of interpretation before appropriate courts in appropriate proceedings.

Section 66 empowers the ED to share information with various government agencies subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions.

At the outset, Zoheb Hossain appearing for ED submitted that the PIL was a “private interest litigation” and the counsel was espousing the cause of his client who has filed a petition before a single judge raising the same question.

“Can an advocate espousing private interest on behalf of his client in pending proceedings where the issue is common raise an issue espousing it as a PIL? It is hit by the bar solely based on private interest. It has been held that a PIL espousing private interest has to be declared as abuse of process of law,” Zoheb said.

He added that the PIL was an attempt to overreach the proceedings pending before the single judge.

The counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that merely because a lawyer takes up an issue of his client before a court, he is not precluded from taking a similar issue in a PIL.

The counsel prayed that the issue of interpretation of section 66 of PMLA be authoritatively settled and clarified that he does not have any personal interest in the matter.

The bench remarked that the issue can be decided by a single judge and that since there was no challenge to the constitutional validity of the provision, it could not be decided by a division bench.

“Let it be done in accordance with law. The issue will be decided by the single judge,” the court said.

The bench observed that it is a settled law that it is open for the parties in a criminal case to raise all the questions and challenge proceedings at the appropriate time before the proper forum and not in the garb of PIL as third parties.

“The parties are at liberty to raise the issue of interpretation (of section 66 of PMLA) before the appropriate courts in appropriate proceedings,” the court said while disposing of the plea.

The PIL alleged that by pressurising the agencies to register FIRs on the basis of information shared by it, the ED is acting as the Complainant, witness and victim.

It further alleged that ED “is acting as Investigator” against the same accused named by it in its FIRs in the predicate offence FIRs.

Title: ASHOK KUMAR SINGH AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 510