Thread by @LiveLawIndia

#SupremeCourt to shortly hear petition filed by ex-Chhattisgarh CM #BhupeshBaghel challenging Sections 44, 50 and 63 of #PMLA and seeking interim reliefs in 5 cases being pursued by probe agencies in the state (including the Liquor 'Scam' case)

Bench: Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi

Hearing begins

Sr Adv Kapil Sibal (for Baghel): This pertains to Section 44 PMLA...apart from s.44, no other provision allows further investigation by ED officers...an explanation can't be the source of ED's power

ASG Raju appearing for respondent-authorities.

#SupremeCourt #BhupeshBaghel

Sibal: in practice, ED is filing subsequent complaints every few months before trial...that's why trials are not taking place...not because of us. Do they have the power to do that?

J Kant: Further investigation power is also beneficial to accused

Sibal: their practice vitiates purpose of the section

J Kant: object of power is not for unauthorized action. If it's exercised strictly...

#SupremeCourt #BhupeshBaghel

J Bagchi: An investigation is never qua an accused. It's qua an offense. So, there may or may not be incriminating fact. Why 'further investigation' was introduced, it was earlier not there...see the words...the law did not confer any power, but recognizing a residual power in the investigating agency to unravel truth. There can't be embargo in the authorities' pursuit of truth.

#SupremeCourt #BhupeshBaghel

J Bagchi: It's an enabling provision. Problem is not with the law, it's with the abuse. Amendment in the new code carried over to BNSS...requirement of judicial oversight is coming to ensure that investigation concludes in police report...in order to avoid vice of interim report, S.173(8) was brought in. What Vijay Madanlal judgment says is...

J Kant: In case they are acting contrary to provision, person can go to High Court.

J Bagchi: It's about breach in individual cases. It's not a constitutional flaw in a legislation

Sibal: They (ED) force the accused to make a statement...please pass some orders. This is an important issue

Order: It's a matter of record that a 3-judge bench in VMC, in para 263, has held...to sum up, this Court has held that (i) ED can bring on record further evidence during trial (ii) further evidence can be brought with prior permission of court (iii) court can proceed against a person...

#SupremeCourt #BhupeshBaghel

Order: there is no gainsaying that if ED has acted contrary to above-stated principles of law explained by VMC judgement, aggrieved person shall be at liberty to approach appropriate forum questioning ED's action. We grant such liberty to petitioners as well (to approach HC).

ASG: It's his say that VMC has said this. Your lordships may not interpret it so...

J Bagchi: It's for the HC to see if your action...

Court modifies the order to state that para 263 interpretation is per the petitioners.

#SupremeCourt #BhupeshBaghel