On Monday, the Delhi High Court has declined to entertain a PIL seeking an ‘authoritative interpretation’ of Section 66 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
This decision comes amidst allegations that the ED is overstepping its bounds by pressuring law enforcement agencies to file FIRs under the said section and assuming multiple roles in the process.
Section 66 of the PMLA has been at the center of controversy, with the ED purportedly acting as a complainant, prosecutor, and victim in cases related to money laundering offenses.
The petition claimed that the ED’s many roles make things unclear and raise worries about fair investigations.
However, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, dismissed the petition.
They highlighted that a single judge could address the request for a clear interpretation of Section 66, without requiring a full bench hearing.
During the proceedings, the court emphasized that individuals accused of offenses could challenge allegations through proper legal channels.
It underscored that there is no exemption from legal scrutiny, even for influential individuals.
In response, the ED’s counsel, Zoheb Hossain, rebuffed the petition, arguing that it primarily served private interests rather than the broader public good.
The court’s decision not only highlights the complex legal landscape surrounding money laundering investigations but also underscores the importance of clarity and transparency in legal proceedings.
It signifies the judiciary’s role in ensuring the fair and impartial application of laws, especially in cases involving powerful entities and agencies.
