Summons under PMLA

The Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) allows statements recorded by investigating officers to be used as evidence in court under Section 50. This provision undermines key constitutional rights and opens the door for abuse, similar to what occurred under TADA and POTA.

1. Violation of Constitutional Rights
Self-Incrimination (Article 20(3)): PMLA violates the right against self-incrimination by making statements recorded by officers admissible, creating pressure for individuals to incriminate themselves. In Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978), the Supreme Court held that indirect coercion to confess violates Article 20(3).
Right to Fair Procedure (Article 21): Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) established that the procedure must be "fair, just, and reasonable." PMLA's lack of safeguards compromises fair trial rights by allowing statements made without judicial oversight to be used as evidence.

2. Historical Abuse Under TADA and POTA
Similar provisions under TADA and POTA allowed statements made before officers to be admissible, leading to widespread misuse. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) recognized the potential for abuse under TADA. Both TADA and POTA were repealed due to their coercive nature and misuse for extracting false confessions.

3. Artificial Distinction Between ED and Police Officers
PMLA's classification of ED officers as "non-police" allows them to record admissible statements. However, this distinction is arbitrary, as ED officers perform police-like functions. In Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2020), the Supreme Court ruled that officers under similar laws (NDPS) should be considered police officers, making confessions inadmissible. The same logic should apply to ED officers under PMLA.

4. Lack of Safeguards and Judicial Oversight
Unlike confessions made before a magistrate, PMLA provides no neutral oversight during questioning. This lack of protection increases the risk of coercion and violates principles outlined in Section 164 of the CrPC, which requires that confessions be made voluntarily before a judicial officer.

5. Global Standards and Potential for Misuse
International law, such as in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) in the U.S., protects individuals from coercive interrogations. PMLA falls short of such standards. Moreover, the act has been used for selective targeting, raising concerns about political misuse, much like the misuse of TADA and POTA.

Conclusion
PMLA’s provisions allowing statements made to investigating officers to be used as evidence violate constitutional safeguards, lack proper oversight, and mirror the abuses seen under TADA and POTA. Either these provisions should be repealed, or significant reforms are needed to ensure fair legal processes.