New Delhi/March,19 : Delhi High Court Refuses to grant stay on summons by Enforcement Directorate to former Jammu & Kashmir Chief Minister and PDP President Mehbooba Mufti a division bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice DN Patel and Justice Jasmeet Singh of the Delhi High Court Friday refused to grant a stay on summons by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) issued to the the former Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, Mehbooba Mufti on a case against her under S.50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).Her appearance before ED is now due for Mar 22. She was represented by Sr. Adv. Nitya Ramakrishnan, whereas Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, alongwith others appeared for the Centre and ED. Mufti was issued summons for appearance on Mar 15. On the last date of hearing the ED had submitted before court that it would not insist upon her appearance until Mar 19. The PDP leader moved court seeking quashing of summons issued to her by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
Enforcement Directorate on Mar 5 under Sections 50(2) and 50(3) of the PMLA and that it refers to an Annexure which “has not been sent to her, and the Mufti had claimed in her petition that she received the summons on her personal email ID from the official email ID of the Assistant Director,, Enforcement Directorate on Mar 5 under Sections 50(2) and 50(3) of the PMLA and that it refers to an Annexure which “has not been sent to her, , and therefore she is not aware of its contents.”
various judgments laid down by the Supreme Court in different cases.She has objected to the fact that she has not been informed if she is being summoned as an accused or as a witness and further not been informed of what she is being summoned in connection with, and the scheduled offence under the PMLA which gave rise to the proceedings in respect of which the summons has been issued to her. She also challenged the vires of Section 50, and incidental provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 for being “unfairly discriminatory, bereft of safeguards, and violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution” and has cited
