Explained: The Supreme Court verdict on PMLA, and why petitioners have sought a review | Explained News,The Indian Express
The Supreme Court will take up a review of its July 27 judgment upholding the law in an unusual open-court hearing today. What did the verdict say, and on what grounds have the petitioners sought a review?
Friday, Aug 26, 2022
ePaper
Today’s Paper
Journalism of Courage
HomeExplainedPolitical PulseIndiaCitiesOpinionEntertainmentLifestyleVideosSportsAudioEducationWorldBusinessTechnology
Subscribe
Sign In
TrendingUPSC KeyHealth SpecialsEveryday ExplainersMovie ReviewsFollow AuthorsCricketCovid-19
if (window.innerWidth) //if browser supports window.innerWidth
var page_w=window.innerWidth;
else if (document.all) //else if browser supports document.all (IE 4+)
var page_w=document.body.clientWidth;
//var page_w=screen.width;
if( page_w > 1024 ) {
jQuery(".add-left,.add-right").show();
}else{
jQuery(".add-left,.add-right").hide();
}
HomeExplainedExplained: The Supreme Court verdict on PMLA, and why petitioners have sought a review
Premium
Explained: The Supreme Court verdict on PMLA, and why petitioners have sought a review
The Supreme Court will take up a review of its July 27 judgment upholding the law in an unusual open-court hearing today. What did the verdict say, and on what grounds have the petitioners sought a review?
Written by Apurva Vishwanath
/// Story Page Editor Details ////
jQuery(".bulletProj").hover(function() {
var dividshow = '#div_'+jQuery( this ).attr( 'id' );
jQuery( this ).siblings("#div_written_by_parent").html( jQuery( dividshow ).html() ).show();
})
jQuery(".editor-details, .editor").hover(function () {},function () {
var dividhide = '#'+jQuery( this ).attr( 'id' );
jQuery( "#div_written_by_parent" ).html("");
jQuery( "#div_written_by_parent" ).hide();
});
New Delhi | Updated: August 25, 2022 8:25:07 am
Karti Chidambaram is the petitioner in the case. (Express/File)On Thursday, the Supreme Court will hear in open court a review of its judgment upholding key provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. A three-judge Bench comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar (who has since retired), Dinesh Maheshwari, and C T Ravikumar had ruled on a batch of over 240 petitions challenging the special law against money laundering.
In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors v Union of India, a judgment delivered on July 27, the Supreme Court upheld the key provisions of the PMLA. In the 540-page ruling, the SC accepted the government’s arguments on virtually every aspect that was challenged by the petitioners: from reversing the presumption of innocence while granting bail to passing the amendments as a Money Bill under the Finance Act to defining the contours of the powers of the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
A ruling by the Supreme Court is final and binding. However, Article 137 of the Constitution grants the SC the power to review its judgments or orders. A review petition must be filed within 30 days of pronouncement of the judgment. Except in cases of death penalty, review petitions are heard through “circulation” by judges in their chambers, and not in an open court. Lawyers make their case through written submissions and not oral arguments. The judges who passed the verdict decide on the review petition as well.
The SC rarely entertains reviews of its rulings. A review is allowed on narrow grounds to correct grave errors that have resulted in a miscarriage of justice. “A mistake apparent on the face of record” is one of the grounds on which a case for review is made. This mistake, the court has said, must be glaring and obvious — such as relying on case law that is invalid.
Congress MP Karti Chidambaram, one of the petitioners who challenged the PMLA, sought a review of the verdict. The key grounds on which review is sought are:
Rating: 5