The Supreme Court rebuilds the bench for three judges to hear requests for the 2022 verdict.

In July 2022, the Supreme Court upheld Ed's right to arrest and attachment under the leadership of PMLA. File | Image source: PTI

The Supreme Court has reorganized the judges of three judges to decide whether its 2022 judgment insists on whether the Enforcement Bureau’s authority to arrest and attach property in the Money Laundering Prevention Act needs to be reconsidered.

The reorganization of the seats of Surya Kant, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh will occupy a batch of petitions to seek review of the 2022 judgment.

The matter lists the hearing on May 7.

Earlier, Justice Kant, Justice Bayan and Justice CT Ravikumar were hearing about this.

Justice Ravikumar advanced on January 5.

Also Read | Supreme Court Ruling Paves for ED surcharge assets, conducting raids before committing predicate crimes: Facts

On March 6, after the lawsuit was listed before the defense committee, Justice Kant told the attorneys that the attorneys who appeared on this issue were mislisted and assured them that the new three benches would soon resolve the issue.

In July 2022, the Supreme Court upheld the authority of the Enforcement Bureau (ED) to arrest and relate to money laundering, search and seize property under the Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

In August of that year, the top court agreed to hear requests seeking to review their judgments and observed that two aspects – not providing the information report on law enforcement cases (ECIR) and a reversal of the presumption of innocence – “Prima Facie” needs to be reconsidered.

In observing the world, money laundering around the world is a “threat” to the good functioning of the financial system, the Supreme Court upheld the effectiveness of certain provisions of PMLA, emphasizing that this is not a “ordinary crime.”

Read Also | The Supreme Court pulled the defendant to jail by using PMLA

The Supreme Court has stated that authorities under the 2002 law are “not police” and that ECIR cannot be equated with the FIR of the Criminal Procedure Code (CRPC).

It has said that in each case, the provision of a copy of the ECIR to the person concerned is not mandatory and that it is sufficient if the ED at the time of arrest discloses the reason.

The judgment was brought by more than 200 petitions filed by individuals and other entities, with various provisions on the PMLA, and opposition often claims that government weapons are used to harass their political opponents.

The Supreme Court said that Article 45 of the PMLA involves cognizable and unbailable offences and has double bail conditions, which is reasonable and does not suffer from arbitrary or unreasonable crimes.