At least 17 Opposition parties have dubbed as "dangerous" the recent Supreme Court judgement upholding amendments made in 2019 to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), giving more powers to agencies such as the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
"We hope that the dangerous verdict will be short-lived and constitutional provisions will prevail soon," read the statement, signed by representatives of the Congress, Trinamool Congress, DMK, Aam Aadmi Party, CPI(M), Samajwadi Party and the RJD, among others.
The Supreme Court on July 27 upheld the validity of a wide range of powers granted to the ED under the amended law that had been challenged by nearly 250 petitions. The court rejected key arguments that the powers to arrest and an ambiguous definition of "proceeds of crime" could be misused.
Some Opposition parties have already said — alleging political vendetta by misuse of the law — that they'll again go to the Supreme Court to seek a review. They also cite that there have been very few convictions under the law.
In the eight years of the Narendra Modi government so far, raids by the ED are up 26 times as compared to the previous government, but the conviction rate is extremely low. In 3,010 money laundering-related searches, only 23 accused have been convicted, according to data shared by the Finance Ministry in the Rajya Sabha. In 112 of these searches, there have been no money-laundering convictions.
Vendetta allegations echoed recently when the Congress's Gandhis were questioned by the ED in a case relating to the publication National Herald.
Further, the Opposition has questioned the way in which these amendments were pushed through in Parliament — and that question is already before the Supreme Court. The statement pointed out that these were passed under the Finance Act introduced as a "Money Bill".
The Money Bill route meant the new provisions only needed an okay from the Lok Sabha, before being sent to the President for a final nod. It could not be rejected by the Rajya Sabha, the Upper House, where the government did not have the numbers for a sure-shot approval.
-22(1).jpg)