The Delhi High Court on Wednesday adjourned to the August 13 hearing in the plea filed by former Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, Mehbooba Mufti challenging vires of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh adjourned the matter at the request of the Solicitor General of India (SGI), Tushar Mehta.
While SGI Tushar Mehta appeared on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate, Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan appeared on behalf of Peoples' Democratic Party president, Mehbooba Mufti in the matter.
After summoned by ED, Mehbooba challenges PMLA
Mehbooba Mufti has challenged the constitutionality of Section 50 of the PMLA in the Delhi High Court in March this year.
PDP president has challenged PMLA when ED had issued her notice and asked her to personally appear for questioning before it in Delhi.
Mufti has challenged the PMLA provision as violating a citizen's right to protection against self-incrimination and urged that the law needs to be revisited in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision upholding the constitutional protection against self-incrimination.
Earlier Court refused to grant a stay to Mehbooba on ED summon
The Court had, earlier, refused to grant a stay on summons by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) issued to Mehbooba Mufti on a case against her under Section 50 of the PMLA. Mehbooba had sought to stay on her appearance before the ED on March 22, 2021.
During the hearing on Wednesday, Chief Justice DN Patel asked Ramakrishnan if Mufti appeared before the Enforcement Directorate in compliance with the summons issued against her. To this, Ramakrishnan apprised the Court that Mufti had duly appeared before the ED as no protection was granted to her by the Court.
PMLA empowers ED to summon any person
Section 50 of the PMLA empowers officers of the Enforcement Directorate, to summon any person to give evidence or produce records. All persons summoned are bound to answer questions put to them, and to produce the documents as required by the ED officers, failing which they can be penalized under the PMLA.
Mehbooba had objected to the fact that she has not been informed if she is being summoned as an accused or as a witness and further not been informed of what she is being summoned in connection with, and the scheduled offense under the PMLA which gave rise to the proceedings in respect of which the summons has been issued to her.
