Mehbooba Mufti has moved to the Delhi High Court in opposition to summons issued to her by the Enforcement Directorate in an alleged money laundering case.
Mehbooba Mufti in her petition has challenged the constitutional validity of Section 50 and other provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Mehbooba Mufti stated that Section 50 of the Act gives the power to the authority to summon any person to provide evidence on produced records. She argued that those who are summoned were bound to answer the questions and produce the documents to the Enforcement Directorate and if they fail, they can be penalised under the Act.
She further mentioned about Section 66 of the PMLA which provides that information, including compelled statements, can be shared with other agencies. This suggests that such a statement may be used for offences beneath other laws whereas being treated as evidence.
Thus, it was observed that this provision is opposing the right to protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
She has additionally argued that none of the protections against compelled self-incrimination, whether under the Constitution or any other statutes, govern Section 50 of the PMLA. Therefore, this makes the section arbitrary and discriminatory in nature.
The PDP chief has sought an interim stay order on the summons till the question of the constitutionality of Section 50 of the Act was decided.