NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday commenced hearing on whether its last year’s verdict upholding stringent provisions of PMLA needed to be re-examined by a five-judge bench, amid heated arguments with the petitioners alleging that the ED has become an “unruly horse” and the Centre terming their conduct as “shocking”, saying the petition was amended at the last moment to seek additional relief and appeal against the 2022 judgment.The hearing on nearly 200 petitions through the day was interspersed with accusations and counter-claims as tempers ran high, prompting a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi to intervene repeatedly to restore calm in the courtroom.

The bench observed, “Everyone seems to be on the edge except the court.

It should not become a personal issue.

Everybody should not be on the edge....

Both sides are extra agitated.”At the outset, solicitor general Tushar Mehta informed the court that the petitioners had only challenged validity of Sections 50 (to issue summons) and Section 63 (punishment for false information or failure to give information) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act and said that they had amended the petitions and challenged various other provisions of the Act which had already been upheld by the court earlier.

He urged the court not to permit the petitioners to expand the ambit of the hearing beyond the two sections.

He said accused under PMLA are misusing pendency of cases and seeking interim protection even when complaint or FIR had not been filed.“We have checked all the petitions, there was no such challenge against provisions other than Section 50 and 63.

Thereafter, an amendment to the petition was filed.

It changes the entire structure.

They have added 5 new prayers, challenging virtually everything,” the SG said.The Centre’s contention was opposed by petitioners’ counsel Kapil Sibal and A M Singhvi in equal force as they told the court that no new ground had been raised in the petition and all the points were there in the petitions including in the petition by ED against the HC verdict.Sibal said that the “draconian provisions” of the Act are against the rule of law and violative of the fundamental rights of an accused as they can be summoned and arrested without knowing the reasons, depriving them the constitutional right to protection.“ED has become an unruly horse and it can go anywhere,” Sibal submitted and pointed out various “flaws” in the 2022 verdict by which the court had upheld all the stringent provisions of the Act.

He said there is a distinction between inquiry and investigation but the apex court had held that there was no distinction.

He said the verdict was wrong as it virtually allowed explanation to a provision to override the statute.Interjecting him, the SG said the 2022 judgment was delivered after debating and discussing each provision of PMLA over 25 days of hearing in which the same lawyers had appeared and it is a misuse of the process of law to seek reconsideration of the judgment in a fresh petition.State govt vs Governors: Supreme Court raises questions over delay in Bill approvalThe hearing will resume Thursday.A 3-judge bench of the apex court had on July 27 last year upheld the stringent regime prescribed for money laundering offences and vast powers enjoyed by ED, giving the agency the go-ahead to arrest people and conduct search and seizure even when no complaint had been filed.

The provisions also make statements made before the agency admissible in court while, also, puts the burden on the accused to prove their innocence.

The court had validated the twin bail conditions as per which an accused could be granted bail only if there are reasonable grounds for the court to believe that he is not guilty and was unlikely to commit offence while on bail.In a voluminous 545-page verdict, the court had ruled that the entire chain of actions involved in the process of concealment, possession, acquisition, use of proceeds of crime as much as projecting it as untainted property or claiming it to be so would constitute an offence of money-laundering.

It meant that a person, who bought a property unaware that it was a tainted one, would also come within the purview of PMLA.