Case Law Details
Ashok Kumar Singh and Ors Vs Union of India and Anr (Delhi High Court)
The case of Ashok Kumar Singh and Ors Vs Union of India and Anr, as adjudicated by the Delhi High Court, primarily revolves around the interpretation of Section 66 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA Act), and the maintainability of the present Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
The petitioners sought several reliefs through the writ petition, primarily focusing on clarifying the scope and obligations of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under Section 66 of the PMLA Act. They sought to ascertain whether the ED, or its Director, is empowered or obligated to lodge FIRs with the police under the Police Act, 1861, and whether accused individuals are entitled to certain safeguards under the PMLA Act if the ED or its subordinates become complainants against them. Additionally, they sought clarification on whether the ED and its Director can claim rights as victims of an offense and invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
The respondent, representing the ED, raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the PIL, arguing that it espouses a private cause and that the issues raised have already been addressed by a Supreme Court judgment. The respondent cited the judgment in Vijay Madan Lal Choudhary vs. UOI & Ors. (2022) to support their argument.
The petitioner countered the objection by asserting that an authoritative interpretation of Section 66 of the PMLA Act would benefit society at large, including ED officers. They contended that the cited Supreme Court judgment did not definitively interpret the scope of Section 66.
The Court deliberated on the matter and upheld the respondent’s objection, stating that it is generally for the parties directly involved in criminal cases to challenge proceedings against them, rather than third parties under the guise of public interest litigants. Furthermore, since the PIL did not challenge the constitutionality or validity of any statutory provision, and instead sought interpretation, the Court deemed it inappropriate for adjudication through a PIL.
Consequently, the Court refused to entertain the PIL but granted the aggrieved parties liberty to raise the issue of interpreting Section 66 of the PMLA Act before the appropriate forum in proper proceedings. The Court emphasized that if such an issue is raised, it will be decided in accordance with the law, leaving the rights and contentions of all parties open.
In essence, the Delhi High Court dismissed the PIL filed by the petitioners, citing procedural grounds and emphasizing the need for parties directly involved in criminal cases to challenge proceedings against them. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of adhering to established legal procedures and forums for addressing legal disputes, particularly in matters concerning criminal proceedings and statutory interpretation.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. Present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
“I. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or the Directions as may be held to befit & proper‑
A. To render an authoritative interpretation of scope & domain of section 66 of the PMLA, 2002 & to state, clarify & declare if the law empowers & obligates the ED, & Director, ED acting either under his own hand & seal or by its subordinates to lodge FIR with Police under the Police Act, 1861 u/s 154 of Cr.P. C., 1973.
B. To render authoritative interpretation of law under the PMLA, 2002 qua the safeguards available to accused under the PMLA, 2002 if the Director, ED/its subordinates become complainant/informant u/s 154 (1) of Cr.P. C, 1973 against the accused in the light of the Constitution Bench judgment dated 31.08.2020 of the Apex Court in “Mukesh Vs. State (Narcotics Branch of Delhi}’, SLP(Crl.) Diary No.38528/2018 as Director, ED/its subordinates are not Police Officers & not subject to safeguards of the Police Manual; the Cr.P.C., 1973; & also the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
c. To render an authoritative interpretation of the law under the PMLA 2002 if the ED, & Director, ED can claim rights & remedies conferred on an individual as victim of offence by the Constitution Bench judgment of Apex Court in the case of “Lalita Kumari Vs. State of P. “, (2014) 2 SCC 1 & can invoke Extra-ordinary Writ jurisdiction of High Court/s under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India for its enforcement.
D. To render an authoritative interpretation of the law under the PMLA 2002 if the ED, & the Director, ED can invoke the Extra-ordinary Writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against State/Union of India over its alleged inaction/s as perceived by the ED & the Director, ED.
(II) To pass any other or further Orders as deemed to befit & proper by this Hon ‘ble Court in facts/circumstances of case.”
2. At the outset, Mr.Zoheb Hossain, learned counsel for respondent 2/ED raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on the ground that it espouses a private cause. He also submits that the issue raised in the present PIL is no longer res integra as it is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vijay Madan Lal Choudhary vs. UOI & Ors., (2022) SCC On!ine 929.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner seriously disputes the aforesaid He states that an authoritative interpretation of Section 66 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA Act’) would benefit the society at large including the officers of Enforcement Directorate (‘ED’). He submits that the judgment Vijay Madan Lal Choudhary (supra) does not authoritatively interpret the scope and domain of Section 66 of PMLA Act.
4. It is settled law that it is for the parties in the criminal case to raise all the questions and challenge the proceedings initiated against them at appropriate time before the proper forum and not for third parties under the garb of public interest litigants (See: Sanjai Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2021) 15SCC 660).
5. Moreover, the present PIL does not challenge the constitutionality and/or validity of any statutory provision or rule. In fact, the primary relief sought in the present PIL seeks an authoritative interpretation of the scope and domain of Section 66 of the PMLA Act, which can easily be done by a learned Single Judge.
6. Consequently, this Court refuses to entertain the present PIL. It, however, gives liberty to the aggrieved parties to raise the issue of interpretation of Section 66 of the PMLA Act before the appropriate Court in proper proceedings. Needless to say that if the said issue is raised, the same shall be decided in accordance with law. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.
7. With the aforesaid liberty, the present petition along with the applications is dismissed.
Author Bio
