On Thursday, the Supreme Court agreed to partially reconsider its July 27 decision in support of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). It said it would review only the power of law enforcement agencies to arrest defendants without the need to produce the Law Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR), which a report is equivalent to a First Information Report (FIR) in a police case.

In addition, there will be a review to overturn the principle of presumption of innocence under PMLA.

The judge, comprising CJI NV Ramana and Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar, issued a notice to MP Karti Chidambaram’s request for a review of the verdict, acknowledging that the fight against money laundering is a “noble objective” and the court supports the fight against money laundering efforts, the country cannot afford such crimes.

The judgment cannot be appealed under the guise of invoking revisional jurisdiction, the bench said, clarifying that instead of the entire judgment, it will look at the issues of non-granting and denial of ECIR “in the main view” of presumption of innocence of the accused in the case investigated by the ED.

“The three of us are of the view that only two aspects require prima facie reconsideration,” the bench said, adding that the top court is not opposing the government’s move to stop the crime of money laundering or to bring back black money or control its circulation “as these crimes are very serious.”

Deputy Attorney General Tushar Mehta, who opposed the petition review, said it was not an independent clause for India, which is part of a large global fabric. “We are part of a larger global structure, and our laws have to be consistent with the larger global structure, we have explained, and the judges have been very kind to review that our laws are not only consistent with that structure but also with our constitution as well,” he said.

“Any deviation could send India back as a country to another list where we won’t be able to get some financial aid,” Mehta argued, adding that there could also be global repercussions.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court granted Chidambaram’s request for an open court hearing to review the July verdict.

In a judgment related to the 2016 Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment, another CJI-led judge on Tuesday noted that under the PMLA, the ED’s power to possess property before trial in exceptional circumstances leaves room for arbitrary application. It further stated that the authorities under the 2002 Act “are not the police themselves” and that ECIR cannot be equated with FIR under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

In the July 27 judgment, a three-judge bench presided over by Justice AM Khanwilkar (since retirement) gave the ED broad powers to seize property, arrest, search and seize money laundering-related. It also announced that it is not mandatory to provide the person or defendant with a copy of the ECIR in each case if the ED discloses the reasons for such action at the time of the arrest. It also makes bail nearly impossible while shifting the onus of exoneration to the accused rather than the prosecution.

The SC dismissed approximately 240 petitions challenging the provisions of the ED’s power to arrest and seize property and subsequently upheld Sections 3 (definition of money laundering), 5 (seizure of property), 8(4) (take possession of attached property), section 17 (search and seizure), section 18 (searchers), Section 19 (power of arrest), section 24 (reverse burden of proof), section 44 (trial by a special court) Offences), Section 45 (Definable and Non-Bailable Offences and Dual Condition of Court Granting Bail) and Section 50 (Representations to Education Department Officials). “Money laundering is a violation of national sovereignty and integrity,” the court noted.