Every PMLA offence has two dimensions - predicate offence and laundering. Money laundering is a separate offence independent from the predicate/scheduled offence, Mehta.
Many of the official records that the ED receives are from other countries as India is apart of a global statutory network against money laundering, Mehta
Statute states that there must be a reason to believe based on matetial in possession and such reasons to be recorded by the adjudicating authority in cases of money laundering, Mehta
The threshold before arresting is much higher as under PMLA than under IPC. Only specified officers can make the arrest after reasons are recorded in writing. All ingredients of Article 20 are covered, Mehta
-Only the Director authorised can arrest
-based on reasons to believe an offence is committed
-reasons to be recorded in writing
-based on material in possession
-evidence submitted to adjudicating authority in sealed cover
The evidence should be kept with an independent body and the evidence can be supplied to the accused only after chargesheet is filed, Mehta
The material in possession is sacrosanct and I cannot use it arbitrarily till chargesheet is filed and cannot serve to the other side till then according to the statue, Mehta
It's not done for "humiliation, humiliation, humiliation" as Mr Singhvi said yesterday but only for prevention, prevention, prevention with capital P, Mehta
Overseas banks have given some specific inputs regarding properties, companies etc. We have issued letters rogatory (LR), we have got some, we are awaiting some, Mehta
I request the court to grant my material an exclusion from the accused at this stage of investigation. Evidence copy cannot be shared with the accused before filing chargesheet, Mehta
Justice Banumathi reminds Mehta that case made on P Chidambaram's behalf was inky that the Court should not be presented with evidence that has not been used to confront the accused.
Mehta hands over a substantially large compilation of case laws to the Court and is reading out precedents to support his argument against disclosure of evidence to the accused ahead of filing of a chargesheet.
SG Tushar Mehta also cites the Supreme Court's judgment in the #BhimaKoregaon case on a petition filed by Romila Thapar and Ors. Mehta points out that in that case too, the case diary was places before the Court.
Supreme Court to resume hearing pleas by Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and other accused seeking bail in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case.
Bench: Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria
#SupremeCourt #UmarKhalid
Hearing begins
ASG SV Raju for Delhi Police: 53 people killed, more than 530 injured, there was a lot of violence. Petrol bombs were used, stones were pelted, sticks, acid like chemicals were used. Stones were pelted on a small contingent of policemen.
Supreme Court to continue hearing bail pleas by Umar Khalid and other accused in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case.
Delhi police to resume arguments today.
Bench: Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria
#SupremeCourt #UmarKhalid
-hearing begins-
ASG SV Raju: I had finished my submissions on parity. I was on the aspect of delay. There was delay even after the high court judgement.
Raju points to the counter affidavit filed by the Delhi police.
He says delay in trial proceedings are attributable to the accused. Highlights orders dated 7.8.25, 12.8.25, 3.9.25, 14.10.25 of the trial court saying adjournments were sought by the accused.
Raju: the trial court may be directed to expedite to proceedings. It’s not a ground to grant bail.
Justice Kumar: on what proposition are you relying on the Salim Khan judgement?
Raju: on delay. In para 13 it has been held that even if someone is in jail for 5 and a half years it’s not a ground to grant bail.
Justice Kumar: but in that case there was direct evidence
Raju: I also have evidence. I shall show to the Court. There’s so much of evidence.
Supreme Court resumes hearing plea seeking investigation into alleged financial irregularities and fund diversion by Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd (IHFL), now renamed Sammaan Capital Ltd.
Bench: Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, and NK Singh
ASG SV Raju: your lordships had sought for the reports last time, I am ready with the reports.
Adv Prashant Bhushan: on the basis of SEBI affidavit this case is crying for an FIR. India bulls is a NBFC. They sent it to the NHB and MCA. Though MCA filed two affidavits before the high court, they don’t mention this before the high court. All that they say is yes certain violations have been noted and they have been compounded. Sameer Gehlot has fled the country. He has bought 5 star hotels, yachts, aircrafts there. SEBI has pointed out that there appears to be evergreening of loans. Shareholding of public is getting transferred to Sameer Gehlot. It needs a detailed investigation.
Justice Kant: very surprisingly CBI has a very cool kind of attitude in this case. We have never seen such a friendly approach by the CBI. This is ultimately public money. There is strong element of public interest. Even if 10% allegations are correct still there are large scale transactions which can be dubbed as dubious. You register an FIR. It will strengthen the hands of the ED, SFIO etc. whoever has to investigate. Why is the MCA indulging in closing the investigation like this? What is their interest in this?
Supreme Court hears case pertaining to long pending bar council elections in States.
Bench: Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, and NK Singh
On the last hearing, the court had said it will appoint retired high court judges for each state to oversee bar council polls.
Sr. Adv. Gopal Sankarnarayanan: over the last several years we have seen how the bar council of India has followed a particular pattern….
Sr. Adv. Manan Mishra, BCI Chairman: you are in the habit of making such allegations in all the courts against the BCI. You are making a mockery of the bar council.
Supreme Court resumes hearing case regarding appointment of information commissioners.
Bench: Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi
ASG KM Nataraj: the meeting unfortunately could not be held.
Prashant Bhushan: today there are 2/11 information commissioners. There are 9 vacancies. It’s been 2 years since this is happening. RTI is not at all a priority for this government.
Court: the committee might have been busy in elections. It is a possibility.
Bhushan: this is not the last instance. This has been going on repeatedly. So many orders. It is defeating a fundamental right declared by this Court. There are more than 25000 cases pending there. Now people have stopped going there. Hardly any progress in any states. Karnataka has appointed all. Otherwise Jharkhand is defunct. Himachal is defunct.
Attorney General for India R Venkataramani to shortly make submissions before Supreme Court on the case challenging the validity of the Tribunal Reforms law #SupremeCourt
AG addresses individual applications first. CESTAT, ITAT etc
AG: there has been detailed deliberations within the government. We have also submitted a note.