<p>The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday asked the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to explain the authority of law under which it directed banks to freeze the bank accounts pertaining to Indians for Amnesty International Trust, the Indian limb of the Amnesty International.</p>.<p>Justice P S Dinesh Kumar gave this direction while observing that even the banks have not revealed the provision of law while freezing the accounts on the direction of the ED.</p>.<p>The petitioner - Indians for Amnesty International Trust - had stated that the banks cited confidentiality and refused to share the details. The court pointed out that bank transaction is a fundamental right of the petitioner, the account holder.</p>.<p>The petitioner is challenging the ED communication dated August 25, 2020 to the banks. The petitioner has alleged harassment stating that subsequently through a provisional order dated November 26, the ED directed to freeze the bank accounts.</p>.<p>According to the petitioner, there was gross violation of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) since the matter was not even taken before the adjudicating authority within 30 days of the seizure.</p>.<p>The counsel representing the Union government submitted that the activities of the petitioner had been under watch under successive governments for the past eight years. The counsel further added that the petitioner has alternative remedies under the PMLA, adjudicating authority and the appellate tribunal.</p>
<p>The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday asked the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to explain the authority of law under which it directed banks to freeze the bank accounts pertaining to Indians for Amnesty International Trust, the Indian limb of the Amnesty International.</p>.<p>Justice P S Dinesh Kumar gave this direction while observing that even the banks have not revealed the provision of law while freezing the accounts on the direction of the ED.</p>.<p>The petitioner - Indians for Amnesty International Trust - had stated that the banks cited confidentiality and refused to share the details. The court pointed out that bank transaction is a fundamental right of the petitioner, the account holder.</p>.<p>The petitioner is challenging the ED communication dated August 25, 2020 to the banks. The petitioner has alleged harassment stating that subsequently through a provisional order dated November 26, the ED directed to freeze the bank accounts.</p>.<p>According to the petitioner, there was gross violation of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) since the matter was not even taken before the adjudicating authority within 30 days of the seizure.</p>.<p>The counsel representing the Union government submitted that the activities of the petitioner had been under watch under successive governments for the past eight years. The counsel further added that the petitioner has alternative remedies under the PMLA, adjudicating authority and the appellate tribunal.</p>