NEW DELHI: In a setback to Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee and his wife Rujira, Supreme Court dismissed their pleas to quash ED summonses in a case of alleged illegal mining in Eastern Coalfields Ltd and held that an accused cannot claim protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution at the stage of summoning by the agency and PMLA being a special act would override all other laws in force, including CrPC.
Article 20(3) says a person cannot be forced to provide evidence against himself.
A bench of justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma junked the plea, argued by senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who had submitted that there was no procedure prescribed under the law for issuing summons and, also, the law was silent about territoriality of investigation. The couple argued that they should be allowed to appear before the ED office in Kolkata instead of the Delhi office, and the alleged offence was committed in Bengal. Rujira raised an additional ground that being a woman, she should be examined at the place of her residence per Section 160 of CrPC.
“We do not find any substance in the challenge made by the appellants to the summons issued to them under Section 50 of PMLA. As contemplated in the sub-section (3) of Section 50, all persons summoned are bound to attend in person or through authorised agents as the officer may direct…” SC said.
The bench said there were inconsistencies between Section 50 PMLA and Section 160 CrPC and, therefore, CrPC would not apply to proceedings under PMLA. It said Section 50 was gender-neutral and SC could not carve out an exception in favour of women.
Referring to the SC’s 2022 ruling by which various provisions of PMLA were upheld, the court said statements recorded by authorities under Section 50 were not hit by Article 20(3) or Article 21 of the Constitution and were admissible as evidence. “At the stage of issue of summons, the person cannot claim protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, the same being not ‘testimonial compulsion’,” it said.
Article 20(3) says a person cannot be forced to provide evidence against himself.
A bench of justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma junked the plea, argued by senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who had submitted that there was no procedure prescribed under the law for issuing summons and, also, the law was silent about territoriality of investigation. The couple argued that they should be allowed to appear before the ED office in Kolkata instead of the Delhi office, and the alleged offence was committed in Bengal. Rujira raised an additional ground that being a woman, she should be examined at the place of her residence per Section 160 of CrPC.
“We do not find any substance in the challenge made by the appellants to the summons issued to them under Section 50 of PMLA. As contemplated in the sub-section (3) of Section 50, all persons summoned are bound to attend in person or through authorised agents as the officer may direct…” SC said.
The bench said there were inconsistencies between Section 50 PMLA and Section 160 CrPC and, therefore, CrPC would not apply to proceedings under PMLA. It said Section 50 was gender-neutral and SC could not carve out an exception in favour of women.
Referring to the SC’s 2022 ruling by which various provisions of PMLA were upheld, the court said statements recorded by authorities under Section 50 were not hit by Article 20(3) or Article 21 of the Constitution and were admissible as evidence. “At the stage of issue of summons, the person cannot claim protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, the same being not ‘testimonial compulsion’,” it said.