One of the issues raised before the Court by the Petitioners was that the officers of the Enforcement Directorate [âEDâ] were âpolice officersâ, and thus bound by the rigours of Section 25 of the Evidence Act (inadmissibility of confessions before a police officer in evidence), as well as Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure [âCrPC”].
Apart from the specific concerns the Supreme Court’s recent judgment on the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 raises, there are broader issues raised by this decision which need to be addressed. What is the purpose of having special laws like PMLA in the first place? Are these purposes served by the current framework? Maneka Khanna gets in conversation with Shri Singh to explore these questions.
By stating that sex workersâ right to dignity is protected under Article 21 irrespective of their occupation, the Court has made the ITPA subject to the mandates of constitutional morality.
Are provisions of the PMLA violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution? Aditya Mehta talks to Aabad Ponda, Senior Advocate, who argued before the Supreme Court concerning this specific issue.Â
The recent dismissal of the challenges to the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 has given grounds for much criticism. Irrespective of the controversy surrounding the judgment, it stands to be the law on the question of money laundering for now. In this conversation between Harsh Srivastava and Arshdeep Singh Khurana, we take a detour from the critique and address how the judgment may be used as part of a defence strategy in money-laundering cases.
What went wrong in the Supreme Courtâs recent decision concerning the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002? Was it a faulty interpretation of the provisions of the Act? A misplaced application of precedent? A general lack of clarity concerning the principles at play? Shivani Misra of Project 39A speaks to Senior Advocate Aman Lekhi on what the Supreme Court could have done differently while balancing the rights of the individual against the Stateâs power.
In light of the Supreme Court quashing the Delhi High Court judgement disallowing the termination of pregnancy after 24 weeks; Anupriya Dhonchak speaks to Dr. Aparna Chandra about the undue barriers that hinder access to safe abortion in India.
In the backdrop of the US Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade, this conversation considers the impact of paternalistic state policies in undermining the bodily integrity and personal autonomy of women, and argues for locating the right to abortion within the framework of substantive equality.
In upholding the validity of Indiaâs money laundering law, the Supreme Court on 27 July 2022, created a new normal in the countryâs justice system, overturning the basic principles of criminal law, deferring to Parliament and the government and subverting its own powers of independent judicial review.
The judgement in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India has created a situation where the State can arrest anyone without telling them precisely what crime they are supposed to have committed and where no court will be able to release them for an extended period. Differently put, history has repeated itself, and we have arrived back at ADM Jabalpur.
On 27 July 2022, the Supreme Court of India in Vijay Madanal Choudhary v Union of India, upheld the validity of various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (âthe Actâ). Here is a summary of the findings and reasoning of the Court on key provisions of the Act.
