&w=3840&q=100)
SC to hear pleas for review of 2022 verdict upholding ED powers on Jul 31
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi adjourned the matter, which was listed for hearing on Wednesday, to July 31 after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said he was not available.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, said he has no objection, if the matter is listed on July 31.
On May 7, the top court asked the Centre and the petitioners to frame issues to be adjudicated in challenge to a verdict which upheld the ED's powers to arrest and attach property of the accused.
The Centre had contended that the hearing on the review petitions cannot go beyond the two specific issues flagged by the bench which issued notice on the petitions in August 2022.
Sibal had earlier submitted that the matter was required to be referred to a larger bench.
Mehta had contended that the bench, which considered the review petitions for admission in August 2022, issued notice only on two aspects - the supply of the ECIR copy to the accused and reversal of burden of proof under Section 24 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The apex court in July 2022 upheld the ED powers of arrest and attachment of property involved in money laundering, search and seizure under PMLA.
In August the same year, the top court agreed to hear pleas seeking review of its verdict and observed that two aspects "prima facie" required reconsideration.
Observing money laundering was a "threat" to the good functioning of a financial system world over, the apex court upheld the validity of certain provisions of the PMLA, underlining it was not an "ordinary offence".
The top court said authorities under the 2002 law were "not police officers as such" and the ECIR could not be equated with an FIR under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The supply of an ECIR copy in every case to the person concerned was not mandatory and it was enough if the ED, at the time of arrest, disclosed the grounds for it, it added.
The 2022 verdict had come on a batch of over 200 petitions questioning various provisions of the PMLA, a law the opposition often claims is weaponised by the government to harass its political adversaries.
Section 45 of the PMLA, which deals with offences to be cognisable and non-bailable and have twin conditions for bail, is reasonable and does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness, the top court said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
35 minutes ago
- Business Standard
States should frame land-for-land policies in rarest of rare case: SC
The Supreme Court has cautioned states against their "land-for-land" policies and said such schemes should be floated in rarest of the rare cases. Press Trust of India New Delhi The Supreme Court has cautioned states against their "land-for-land" policies and said such schemes should be floated in rarest of the rare cases. A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan further said a plea of deprivation of right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution to oppose the land acquisition by the state was unsustainable as it called the litigation pursued by Haryana as an eye opener" for all states. The bench was acting on a batch of pleas filed by the Estate Officer of Haryana Urban Development Authority and others challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court's 2016 decision that upheld the trial court decrees favoring oustees. We have made ourselves very explicitly clear that in cases of land acquisition the plea of deprivation of right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution is unsustainable, Justice Pardiwala said in a 88-page verdict on July 14. The high court held displaced landowners, whose land was acquired by Haryana authorities for public purposes, entitled to benefit under the 2016 Rehabilitation Policy and not the older, more concessional 1992 scheme. The verdict was critical of Haryana's very unusual policy on land acquisition. Under it, if the government acquires land for public purposes, it provides alternate plots of land to the oustees. The top court observed only in rarest of rare cases the government might consider floating any scheme for rehabilitation of the displaced persons over and above paying them compensation in terms of money. "At times the State Government with a view to appease its subjects float unnecessary schemes and ultimately land up in difficulties. It would unnecessarily give rise to a number of litigations. The classic example is the one at hand, it added. It is not necessary that in all cases over and above compensation in terms of money, rehabilitation of the property owners is a must, the bench noted. Any beneficial measures taken by the Government should be guided only by humanitarian considerations of fairness and equity towards the landowners, it said. The dispute traces back to the land acquired by the Haryana government in early 1990s. While compensation was awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, a parallel state policy promised rehabilitation plots to those displaced. However, the oustees failed to apply in the prescribed format or deposit the required earnest money in line with the 1992 policy terms. Most of the lawsuits were filed 14 to 20 years after acquisition, seeking mandatory injunction under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act. Dealing with the issues, the bench said the oustees couldn't claim a legal right to plots at the 1992 rates and the 2016 policy, as revised in 2018, would apply. It said oustees were criticised for filing civil suits after unjustifiable delays of over a decade, well beyond the three-year period under the Limitation Act. Though the top court found the suits technically non-maintainable, it exercised equitable jurisdiction to extend the benefit of the 2016 policy. The respondents (oustees) are not entitled to claim as a matter of legal right relying on the decision of that they should be allotted plots as oustees only at the price as determined in the 1992 policy, it said. The bench observed oustees were entitled at the most to seek the benefit of the 2016 policy for the purpose of allotment of plots as oustees. The apex court then granted four weeks to all respondents to make an appropriate online application with deposit of the requisite amount in accordance with the policy of 2016. "If within a period of four weeks any of the respondents herein prefer any online application in accordance with the scheme of 2016 then in such circumstances the authority concerned shall look into the applications and process the same in accordance with the scheme of 2016, it said. The bench clarified it would be up to the authority to examine whether the oustees were eligible for the allotment of plots or not. We make it clear that there shall not be any further extension of time for the purpose of applying online with deposit of the requisite amount, it said. Observing some of oustees might be rustic and illiterate and unable to apply online, the top court allowed them to apply by preferring an appropriate application or otherwise addressed to the competent authority with the deposit of the requisite amount. The bench ordered Haryana and HUDA to ensure land grabbers or other miscreants didn't form a cartel to benefit from the allotment of plots.
India.com
an hour ago
- India.com
SC Summons Samay Raina, Other Comedians Over Alleged Remarks On Disabilities
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed stand-up comedians Samay Raina, Vipul Goyal, Balraj Paramjeet Singh Ghai, and Nishant Jagdsish Tanwar to appear personally before the court on the next date of hearing over their alleged insensitive remarks against persons with disabilities. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi allowed comedian Sonali Thakkar, also known as Sonali Aditya Desai, to appear virtually during the next hearing. The apex court recorded the presence of Raina, Goyal, Tanwar, Ghai, and Thakkar and directed them to file their replies to the petition within two weeks. They all appeared before the apex court today in pursuant to court's earlier order. The bench made it clear that no extension will be granted beyond this period and warned that any absence on the next date of hearing will be viewed seriously. The apex court asked Attorney General R Venkataramani, representing the Centre, to prepare social media guidelines while balancing the freedom of speech and expression and the rights and duties of others. Venkataramani sought time to assist the court on the issue and said the enforceability of guidelines would require detailed consideration. "What we are doing is for posterity. You have to ensure that not a single word is misused by anyone. You have to ensure balance. We have to protect citizens' rights. A framework must be there that the dignity of anyone is not violated," the bench said. #WATCH | Delhi | Comedian Samay Raina arrives in the Supreme Court, to appear before the court in the matter related to allegedly mocking persons with disabilities. — ANI (@ANI) July 15, 2025 The top court was hearing a petition filed by M/s Cure SMA Foundation seeking a prohibition on the broadcast of derogatory and denigrating content on the digital media against persons with disability. It also sought the formulation of guidelines to safeguard the rights and dignity of persons with disability in the context of the broadcasting of online content. On May 5, the bench had summoned the comedians to appear before it or face coercive action after the plea alleged that they ridiculed persons suffering from SMA, a rare disorder, and also those suffering from other disabilities on their show. The top court had also issued notice to the Union of India through the Ministries of Information and Broadcasting, Electronics and Information Technology, Social Justice and Empowerment, and News Broadcasters and Digital Association, and Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation. The NGO brought to the notice of the court the broadcast of certain online content, media and programmes that are derogatory, offensive, denigrating, ableist or belittling to persons with disability, or their diseases, or their treatment options. The petitioner was also aggrieved by the lack of any explicit statutory guidelines to sufficiently regulate the broadcast of such online content, which violates the right to life and dignity of persons with disabilities, while transgressing the qualified right of free speech and expression. It asked the court to put a positive obligation on both the government and private actors to adopt a unique standard of representation of persons with disability in the online domain. The NGO accused Raina of insensitive remarks on persons with such conditions, high-costing drugs and treatment options for Spinal Muscular Atrophy and also alleged to have ridiculed a person with disability. It flagged videos where he made comments on persons with disabilities. The petition said these comedians are public figures and enjoy a following of millions of viewers/users on various social media intermediaries. "The petitioner is concerned by certain live and pre-recorded event videos of these individuals, due to their offensive, denigrating and dehumanising representation of persons with disabilities," the petition said. "These videos shed light on the widespread irresponsible, insensitive and violate dissemination of such online content that contravenes the rightsof the persons with disability under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, propels offensive stereotypes and misguided portrayals against them, and detrimentally impacts their societal participation, and fosters insensitivity and inhumanity against them, and as such falls within the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2)," said the petition.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
Firms affected by IPR violations could press criminal charges as victim: SC
The Supreme Court has ruled that a company can be called a 'victim' under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and file an appeal against an acquittal order in criminal cases, including intellectual property rights (IPR) violations. This means that corporate entities affected by IPR violations could now pursue criminal proceedings as the victim. A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra was hearing a plea by Asian Paints, which had suffered losses due to the accused selling counterfeit paints. Asian Paints moved the apex court against the Rajasthan High Court's judgment dismissing its appeal against the acquittal of one Ram Babu, who was allegedly found selling counterfeit paint products under the brand name. The High Court had dismissed the appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, reasoning that an agent of Asian Paints, and not the company, was the "complainant", and therefore the company could not file an appeal against the acquittal. The Supreme Court, while disagreeing with this reasoning, questioned whether the appellant would fall under the definition of 'victim' in terms of Section 2(wa) read with the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, or whether Section 378 of the CrPC would prevail in the present case. ALSO READ: The proviso to Section 372 grants victims the right to appeal against acquittal of the accused, conviction for a lesser offence, or inadequate compensation. If the court orders insufficient compensation for the victim, the victim can appeal. The apex court bench held that 'Section 2(wa) of the CrPC has thoughtfully accorded an expansive understanding to the term 'victim' and not a narrow and restrictive meaning.' 'In the present case, there cannot be any two opinions that ultimately, it is the Appellant who has suffered due to the counterfeit/fake products being sold or attempted to be sold as having been manufactured by the Appellant. The Appellant would suffer financial loss and reputational injury if such products were bought by the public under the mistaken belief that they belonged to the Appellant's brand,' the apex court judgment said. Asian Paints, a manufacturer in the paint industry for over 73 years, had engaged an IPR consultancy firm, M/s Solution, to track and take action against counterfeiters. During a market investigation in February 2016, the firm found counterfeit products resembling Asian Paints' trademarks at the shop of "Ganpati Traders" in Tunga, Rajasthan, owned by the accused Ram Babu. After a police inspection, 12 buckets of allegedly fake paint were seized. The trial court acquitted Ram Babu, after which Asian Paints challenged the decision in the High Court. The High Court dismissed Asian Paints' appeal, prompting the company to move the Supreme Court. Advocate Ajay Singh and his team from Singh Law Chambers represented Asian Paints (petitioner), while Advocate Thakur Sumit and others appeared for the respondents.
