SC agrees to listen to in open court docket plea in search of evaluation of PMLA judgement
By Express News Service
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to listen to an open court docket plea by Congress MP Karti Chidambaram in search of a evaluation of the judgment that upheld the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
“The application for oral hearing is allowed. List the matter in the Court on 25.08.2022,” the bench of CJI NV Ramana, Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar mentioned of their order.
The evaluation was sought towards the judgement dated July 27 handed by the bench headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar (now retired) in a batch of greater than 200 petitions that empowered ED for making arrests, conducting search and seizures and attaching proceeds of crime. The SC bench additionally comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar had additionally noticed that it was not an “ordinary offence.”
Chidambaram within the petition had argued that the judgment deserved to be reviewed on grounds of grave error and was opposite to article 20 (Protection in respect for conviction of offences) and 21 (Protection of life and private liberty) of the Constitution and settled rules of prison jurisprudence.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to listen to an open court docket plea by Congress MP Karti Chidambaram in search of a evaluation of the judgment that upheld the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
“The application for oral hearing is allowed. List the matter in the Court on 25.08.2022,” the bench of CJI NV Ramana, Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar mentioned of their order.
The evaluation was sought towards the judgement dated July 27 handed by the bench headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar (now retired) in a batch of greater than 200 petitions that empowered ED for making arrests, conducting search and seizures and attaching proceeds of crime. The SC bench additionally comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar had additionally noticed that it was not an “ordinary offence.”
Chidambaram within the petition had argued that the judgment deserved to be reviewed on grounds of grave error and was opposite to article 20 (Protection in respect for conviction of offences) and 21 (Protection of life and private liberty) of the Constitution and settled rules of prison jurisprudence.
