NEW DELHI: More than two months after Enforcement Directorate (ED) attached his assets in J&K Cricket Association (JKCA) money laundering probe, regional National Conference (NC) president and MP Farooq Abdullah has challenged the jurisdiction of the probe agency in Jammu and Kashmir High Court.
In December 19, 2020, the ED had attached three houses and a commercial building belonging to octogenarian Abdullah in Srinagar, Baramulla and Jammu under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Besides, houses and a commercial building, land belonging to the NC leader, had also been attached at four places in J&K. While the book value of these attached properties is Rs 11.86 crore, their market value is stated to be about Rs 60-70 crore. The ED action is related to alleged misappropriation of funds in the JKCA when flamboyant Abdullah was heading the association.
The NC leader, through his advocate has petitioned to the court that his ancestral and family properties in Jammu and Kashmir have been illegally attached by the ED as “it had no jurisdiction to do the same.”
“On the date of the registration of the ECIR (Enforcement Commission Information Report) and the initiation of investigation, the State of Jammu & Kashmir was governed by the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir, 1956 and had special status in terms of Article 370 of the Constitution of India,” the petition reads.
It pleads that on 28.12.2018 the ED registered the ECIR with section 120B RPC in the FIR and failed to appreciate that it had no jurisdiction to register it. Abdullah in his petition has pleaded that the PMLA was not a law which could extend to the jurisdiction of then State of Jammu & Kashmir, “as the Parliament was not having legislative competence to enact the said law in terms of the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954.”
The petitioner has also submitted that his attached properties are admittedly unrelated to the alleged criminal activity mentioned in the Final Report/FIR and is a “continuing violation of his fundamental rights.”
“All properties attached by the ED are either ancestral or acquired by the petitioner prior to the date of the alleged offences. The attached properties were acquired prior to the alleged commission of the offences, and hence were not involved in any alleged money-laundering or related criminal activity,” the petition added.
