CHENNAI: The jam-packed Court Hall 7 of the Madras High Court on Tuesday looked like an episode from a legal drama — epic, exciting and thrilling, especially for budding lawyers and advocates, thanks to senior counsels Tushar Mehta, Mukul Rohatgi and NR Elango.
The bone of contention before the bench — Justice Nisha Banu and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy — was whether the 2002 PMLA act had supremacy over the good old CRPC that deals with arrest, bail and evidence.
Section 19 of PMLA empowers ED officials to arrest a person if they believe that the person is guilty of an offence punishable under the Act. This was the strong argument put forth by the counsel representing ED.
Though the section states that the grounds of arrest must be informed as soon as possible and not immediately, this was challenged by senior lawyers. They explained that there were lapses in the way Minister Senthilbalaji was arrested, and his personal liberty was denied. On the other hand, Section 41A of CRPC and the powers conferred to the station officers were discussed in detail.
A few professors and law students were recording the proceedings on how statutes were interpreted and the jurisprudence discussed among learned lawyers. A few former ruling party MLAs and MPs also walked in to know about the case on the custody of the minister.
For this correspondent, it was a learning experience to watch the verbal duel between the legal eagles engaged by the State and centre.