It was argued that since PMLA is a criminal law, it should come with the safeguards provided to those being summoned, on the same lines as provided in the Criminal Procedure Code.
Absence of the same amounts to violation of fundamental rights, it was contended.
“Provisions of Section 50 PMLA are in direct contravention of the Fundamental Right against self-incrimination enshrined under Article 20(3) of the Constitution,” the petitioner submitted.
The petitioner pointed out that in his case, he is unaware of the scope of the probe or the nature of allegations against him since a copy of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) was not shared with him.
Such practices enable a ‘roving and fishing enquiry’ that is impermissible in law, it was argued.
Further, the provisions do not allow challenge of initiation of criminal proceedings.
“The powers under the PMLA are not to prevent public servants from fulfilling their duties or for the purposes of stifling the opposition,” it was submitted.
The ‘cryptic’ summons issued to Singh are part of a larger ploy to muzzle opposition leaders and coerce, harass and intimidate them, it was contended.
Source: Barandbench
