New Delhi: The Supreme Court has junked a plea seeking review of its judgment, which held that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) need not supply the grounds of arrest to the accused in writing at the time of arrest, and the written information can be given within 24 hours. The review petition was filed by Ram Kishore Arora, founder of real estate company Supertech, and also rejected an application filed by Arora seeking listing of the review petition in open court. The petitioner sought a review of the December 15, 2023 judgment.
A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, dismissing the review petition through a short order delivered on January 31, 2024, said, "We have carefully gone through the said judgment and the review petition. In our opinion, no case for review is made out. Consequently, the review petition is dismissed”.
The apex court, in its December judgment, had explained the legal position while rejecting a plea by Arora for applying the Pankaj Bansal judgement retrospectively and declaring his arrest by the ED as illegal for not providing the grounds of arrest in writing.
The apex court had said that in Pankaj Bansal's judgment, the court had used the word “henceforth”, meaning thereby furnishing grounds of arrest in writing to the arrested person as soon as after his arrest was not the mandatory or obligatory till the date of the said judgment. “Hence non-furnishing of grounds of arrest in writing till the date of pronouncement of judgment in Pankaj Bansal case could neither be held to be illegal nor the action of the officer concerned in not furnishing the same in writing could be faulted with. As such, the action of informing the person arrested about the grounds of his arrest is sufficient compliance with Section 19 of the PMLA as also Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, as held in Vijay Madanlal”, the apex court had said.
The court had then also said a three-judge bench in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case (2022) had upheld the constitutional validity of Section 19 (power of arrest) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act on the touchstone of Article 22(1) (a person is to be informed about the grounds of arrest) of the Constitution.
The apex court said in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (2022), it has been categorically held that so long as the person has been informed about the grounds of his arrest, that is sufficient compliance with the mandate of Article 22(1) (a person is to be informed about the grounds of arrest) of the Constitution.
- " class="align-text-top noRightClick twitterSection" data="">
Read more: ED Arrests Real Estate Firm Supertech's Chairman R K Arora In Money-Laundering Case
