Supreme Court Orders in News

#### Facts for Prelims (FFP)

Source: TH, TH

SC orders | Descriptions

SC limits ED’s power to arrest PMLA accused | Background of the case: The judgment stemmed from Tarsem Lal’s appeal against the ED after being denied anticipatory bail by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. It raised questions on whether an accused appearing in a special court could seek bail under CrPC provisions

SC decisions: Enhancement of Right to Personal Liberty: Individuals summoned by a special court under PMLA are not considered in custody and don’t need to apply for bail under PMLA’s strict conditions

Limitation on ED’s Powers to Arrest: ED must apply separately for custody after a special court acknowledges a case, providing specific reasons for custodial interrogation.

Additional Relief for Accused: An accused, who appears in a special court pursuant to its summons, could be exempted from personal appearance in the future. However, if an accused does not appear after a summons is served, the special court could issue a bailable warrant followed by a non-bailable one.

About Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002: Enacted in January 2003, the PMLA aims to prevent and control money laundering, confiscate laundered property, and address related issues in India. The Act has been amended multiple times, most recently by the Finance Acts of 2015, 2018, and 2019.

Section 3 defines money laundering as engaging in activities with proceeds of crime.

Section 45 of the PMLA imposes stringent bail conditions, requiring the accused to prove innocence and assure no further offences while on bail, posing significant challenges for bail.

SC order on Right to Property | The Supreme Court ruled that compulsory acquisition of property without proper procedures and fair compensation is unconstitutional, affirming the right to private property as a constitutional and human right.

SC stated that Article 300A has been characterised both as a constitutional and also a human right. Article 300A states that “no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law”

The court stated that procedural justice is a cornerstone of Article 300A when the acquisition of private property by the State is for a public purpose and on the payment of compensation.

Seven basic rights: The court laid down seven basic procedural rights of private citizens which constitute the “real content of the right to property under Article 300A” that the state should respect before depriving them of their private property. They include:

1.Right to notice or the duty of the state to inform the person that it intends to acquire his property
2.Right of the citizen to be heard or the duty of the state to hear the objections to the acquisition
3.Right of the citizen to make a reasoned decision or the duty of the state to inform the person of its decision to acquire property
4.Duty of the state to demonstrate that the acquisition is exclusively for public purpose
5.Right to fair compensation of the citizen
6.Duty of the state to conduct the process of acquisition efficiently and within prescribed timelines
7.Right of conclusion i.e. the conclusion of the acquisition proceedings leading to the vesting of fair compensation

Right to Property in Indian Constitution: Initially considered a fundamental right protected under Article 31 and Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, this status was altered (44th Amendment Act of 1978) as both articles were deleted and replaced with a single provision, Article 300A, housed in Part XII. This amendment redefined the legal status of the right to property, shifting it from a fundamental to a constitutional right.

Enhancement of Right to Personal Liberty:

The Act has been amended multiple times, most recently by the Finance Acts of 2015, 2018, and 2019.

Article 300A states that *“no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law”*

They include: