8.2 C
New York
Wednesday, August 10, 2022
HomeWorldIndiaOpposition to the Supreme Court's approval of more powers to manage enforcement

Opposition to the Supreme Court’s approval of more powers to manage enforcement

Delhi:

At least 17 opposition parties have described the recent ruling by the Supreme Court upholding the amendments as “dangerous”. made in 2019 to prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), Tender more Powers for agencies such as the Enforcement Administration (ED).

He added, “We hope that the dangerous ruling will be short and that the constitutional provisions will prevail soonThe statement signed by the representatives was read out of Congress, Trinamool Congress, DMK, Aam Aadmi Party, CPI(M), Samajwadi Party and RJD, among others.

Supreme court on July 27 validity upheld of Wide range of The powers granted to the ED under the amended law have been challenged by approximately 250 petitions. The court refused key Arguments that powers arrest ambiguous definition of ‘Proceeds of crimeIt can be misused.

Some opposition parties have already He said – claiming political vengeance through misuse of Law – they will again Go to the Supreme Court to request a review. that they also He cited that there were very few convictions under the law.

In the eight years of Narendra Modi government So far, emergency department raids up 26 times Compared to the previous government, but the conviction rate Too low. at 3,010 money laundering- Related searches, only 23 defendants have been convicted, according to data published by the Ministry of Finance in Rajya Sabha. in 112 of These searches, there was no money-laundering convictions.

Allegations of revenge reverberated recently when Gandhi’s members of Congress were questioned by the ED in A case relating to the publication of the National Herald.

Moreover, the opposition questioned way in through which these modifications have been paid in Parliament – this question is already before the Supreme Court. The statement indicated out That these were passed under the Finance Act which was presented as a ‘Financial Bill’.

The way of the law of money means new The provisions only needed approval from Lok Sabha, before being sent to the chief for a final gesture. It could not be rejected by the Rajya Sabha, the Senate, where it was government He didn’t have the numbers for A sure approval shot.

“If tomorrow the Supreme Court decides that the contested amendments through the Finance Act are bad in The law, “Read the opposition’s statement”, then the whole process will be pointless and a loss of Judicial time.

The opposition’s biggest argument is that the financial bill is a basis for dealing with Personalization of money of the consolidated fund and taxes, and can not be used to make laws on Other things.

“We hold, and will always hold, our Supreme Court in The highest respect. However, we have to point out out that judgment should They waited for judgment of Bigger seat for Constitutional examination of Finance law path to carry out modifications” added.

“These far-reaching adjustments have strengthened the hands of A government indulgence in political revenge of She also said “the worst kind” also Very disappointed because highest The judiciary… virtually reproduced the arguments made by the executive in support of draconian modifications.

However, the court said during sentencing last Week: “Money laundering Not only affects the social and economic fabric of nation but also It tends to promote other heinous crimes such as terrorism and (drug) related crimes.”

I rejected the argument that the powers arrest without informing the accused of a copy of The status report is unconstitutional. Court said show of ECIR (Enforcement Status Information Report) in Each case is not mandatory because it is an internal document. The petitioners were rejected challenge It is similar to the flight information report and the accused is entitled to a copy of it. The court said that it is enough if the CEO, at the time of arrestinforms the accused of the reasons for the event.

The petitioners were also Burden Mode Challenge of Evidence – proof on accused, saying that it violates basic rights. But the court disagreed. Center government He said this burden of Evidence – proof on The accused is justified money-laundering Crimes are serious and there are societal need to restrain them.

Follow World Weekly News on

Sallie Anderson
Sallie Anderson
Sallie works as the Writer at World Weekly News. She likes to write about the latest trends going on in our world and share it with our readers.

Leave a Reply

Must Read