Section 50 of the PMLA confers power on the Directorate of Enforcement 

[ED] to
summon any person for the purpose of giving evidence. Section 50(3) compels such a person
to answer truthfully. Non-compliance with section 50(3) is penalized through Section 63 of
the PMLA. 

Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju was making submissions before a bench comprising
Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheswari and C.T. Ravikumar in response to a batch of
petitions challenging the constitutional validity of various provisions of the Prevention of
Money Laundering Act [PMLA].

Supporting the validity of section 50, Raju argued that the three ingredients to attract Article
20(3), namely (i) accused of an offence, (ii) compulsion and (iii) being a witness against
oneself do not exist in the case of a statement recorded under section 50 of the PMLA. He
added that for a breach of Article 20(3), all the three elements must be complied with.

Even if a single ingredient is not complied with there would not be any violation of Art. 20(3),
Raju submitted. He contended that a statement made under section 50 of the PMLA would not
infringe the fundamental right contained in Article 20(3) inasmuch as the person making the
statement is not an accused at the time when the statement under section 50 is made. He
argued that the Supreme Court has laid down the necessity of a formal accusation against the
person concerned to attract Article 20(3).