However, the Court questioned this stance, suggesting that the accused may not remember every document and should have the right to request all documents recovered from their place.
The Court also noted that times are changing and that a rigid approach may not be just. They pointed out that technology allows for easy scanning and sharing of documents, making it possible to provide the accused with the necessary documents.
The case has implications for the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which has come under scrutiny in several high-profile cases involving politicians. The Court has reserved judgment in the matter.
Key points:
1. The Supreme Court questioned the Enforcement Directorate on its practice of not providing accused individuals with documents seized during a money laundering probe.
2. The Court asked if the accused can be denied documents on technical grounds.
3. The Additional Solicitor General argued that the accused can only request documents if they know they exist and if it is "necessary" and "desirable".
4. The Court questioned the rigidity of this approach and suggested that the accused should have the right to request all documents recovered from their place.
5. The Court noted that technology allows for easy scanning and sharing of documents, making it possible to provide the accused with the necessary documents.
6. The case has implications for the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which has come under scrutiny in several high-profile cases involving politicians.
