Have I understood it correctly?
On #PMLA SC has said : declaration by Parliament, ipso facto, satisfies the 'test' of compelling State interest.
Does that leave room for judicial scrutiny of a Law as all of them are passed / declared by the Parliament. Often, w/o debate.
On #PMLA SC has said : declaration by Parliament, ipso facto, satisfies the 'test' of compelling State interest.
Does that leave room for judicial scrutiny of a Law as all of them are passed / declared by the Parliament. Often, w/o debate.
More shocking is pulling up directive principles in support of upholding sections that are inversion of justice and due process.
Mind boggling is citation of State's obligation to prevent concentration of wealth in a few hands to justify draconian powers of arrest & detention.
Mind boggling is citation of State's obligation to prevent concentration of wealth in a few hands to justify draconian powers of arrest & detention.
SC completely missed the fact that ED's powers have actually been used by the State to concentrate wealth in a few hands - case in point - Mumbai Airport came to Adani only after ED booked GVK Group under PMLA.
That GVK owners weren't arrested can be attributed to sale to Adani
That GVK owners weren't arrested can be attributed to sale to Adani
One can't rule out the possibility of GVK owners languishing in jail w/o trial or bail had they refused to sell out to Adani.
So, in effect, it's likely that the SC decision sanctions abuse of powers under PMLA for ensuring concentration of wealth in few hands.
Have a great day
So, in effect, it's likely that the SC decision sanctions abuse of powers under PMLA for ensuring concentration of wealth in few hands.
Have a great day
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
