Today, On 7th August, The Supreme Court, while hearing review pleas against its 2022 verdict upholding ED’s powers, criticised Enforcement Directorate and remarked “You cannot act like a crook, you have to work within the four corners of law,” stressing legal accountability.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court continued hearing the petitions seeking a review of its 2022 verdict that had upheld the wide-ranging powers of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
A three-judge bench comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh was hearing the matter.
At the beginning of the hearing, the court dealt with a separate miscellaneous application filed by Congress MP Karti Chidambaram.
Justice Surya Kant observed,
“In the Karti Chidambaram matter, there’s an application seeking refund.”
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Chidambaram, said,
“He had to file an application every time he travelled abroad.”
Justice Kant clarified the context and said,
“The refund sought is of Rs.1 crore, which he had deposited as per this Court’s earlier orders.”
He added,
“The petitioner was allowed to travel abroad after depositing money in an interest-bearing account with a nationalised bank. Initially Rs.2 crore was directed, later reduced to Rs.1 crore. He complied, travelled in Nov 2022, and returned his passport to the agency.”
The court then passed an order stating,
“The miscellaneous application is allowed. Rs.1 crore plus interest to be released within a week.”
As the hearing on the review petitions resumed, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) began with preliminary objections.
Justice Kant asked,
“Just give us a brief background of the review petitions.”
The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) argued that the petitioners were trying to indirectly bring back certain issues that had already been settled. He questioned whether the Court could consider such matters during a review.
He further pointed out that if the Court intended to allow a broader reconsideration, it would not have restricted the scope to just two specific issues in its earlier order.
Also Read: Supreme Court Reconstitutes Bench to Review ED’s Powers Under PMLA
Justice Kant questioned,
“Was this affidavit ever considered in court?”
The ASG answered,
“There was no objection from the other side it wasn’t disputed. I will demonstrate that many of the grounds raised aren’t even permissible in a review. Please refer to the Y Balaji judgment.”
Justice Kant then strongly criticised the timing of the application and remarked,
“I want to send a strong message by this that this practice of waiting to retire the judges and then waiting to file an application after that is very condemnable. This act of bench hunting is becoming prevalent day by day.”
He added,
“The judgement is of May 2023 and the application is filed in 2025.”
The ASG informed,
“The application is scheduled for hearing on August 11, 2025.”
The court responded,
“We’ll take it up then.”
Justice Kant added,
“You are raising maintainability. Whether it’s one or five issues isn’t the key point.”
During the hearing on the review petition, the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) strongly opposed the plea by stating that there was no apparent error on record to justify a review. He emphasised that the Supreme Court bench had limited the scope of the review to only two specific issues for a reason, and any attempt to revisit other settled matters, such as the constitutional validity, should not be entertained. He also pointed out that the Money Bill issue was already pending before a seven-judge bench, and therefore could not be reopened in the current proceedings.
Referring to the Roger Matthews case, the ASG said it had already addressed the Money Bill concerns and rejected the argument that the earlier Vijay Madanlal judgment should have awaited that verdict. He argued that using the same logic, this review petition should also wait, but such a delay was not a valid ground for review. When the bench inquired about the Balaji judgment, the ASG clarified that it was a two-judge decision and was being cited only to show conduct, not to establish legal principles. He stressed that if the petitioners had objections to paragraph 117 of the original verdict, they should have filed a review at that time.
Highlighting the legal threshold, the ASG explained that review petitions must demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record an error that is clear and does not require elaborate arguments to uncover. He maintained that reviews should only be allowed in exceptional circumstances and must strictly adhere to Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Accepting this review, he warned, would effectively result in rewriting the Vijay Madanlal judgment.
Responding to a question from Justice Kant about statutory arrest procedures, the ASG clarified that while a statutory complaint is not mandatory for arrest, it is now compulsory to provide the grounds and reasons for arrest, and the arrested person must be presented before the court within 24 hours.
He also stated that the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) is not a statutory requirement and investigations can proceed without it.
Justice Kant asked,
“After arresting, within 24 hours you convey the grounds of arrest. But suppose the court say that you communicate the grounds of arrest as soon as you arrest?”
The ASG agreed and added,
“Even the reasons to believe also has to be furnished.”
Justice Kant then shared his past judicial experience and said,
“Back in 2015 or 16 when I was a High Court judge I delivered the first judgment on Section 19 of the PMLA. I held that if the procedure under Section 19 isn’t followed at the time of arrest you can’t later rely on 19(1). There was no SC judgement and I tried my best to find judgement of any other High Court but couldn’t. If a person wants to approach the court, they must know what they are challenging that’s precisely why the reasons for arrest must be handed over.”
Justice Kant also commented on crypto regulation and said,
“No one on the court’s side has said that you should ban cryptocurrency. Our internal currency is also regulated.”
The ASG highlighted the burden on the investigating agencies and said,
“The investigators are even more burdened than the courts.”
The court remarked,
“The conviction rate is less than 10%, therefore we’re saying the investigation should be improved. We are also equally concerned with the image of ED.”
Justice Bhuyan said,
“You cannot act like a crook. You have to work within the four corners of law. There is a difference between law-enforcing authorities and law-violating bodies. See what I observed in one of the cases that came true in what a minister said in parliament…. After 5000 cases, less than 10 convictions. We are equally concerned about the image of ED,”
The ASG responded,
“That’s because the rich and powerful stall proceedings with top lawyers and endless applications.”
Justice Kant noted,
“I have seen a case with 47 applications. If you want day-to-day hearing, then you should go to special court.”
The ASG said,
“They delay trials and don’t let them begin.”
Justice Kant emphasised,
“The presiding officer must not have any other duties.”
Finally, while going over the grounds raised in the review petitions, the ASG maintained,
“These don’t qualify for review, none of the required parameters are met. It’s essentially an appeal disguised as a review.”
Justice Kant summarised,
“So your argument is that the petitioners’ review isn’t maintainable and should be dismissed outright though it’s largely academic now given there are other connected petitions too.”
The bench then rose for the day.
Case Title: Karti P. Chidambaram v. The Directorate of Enforcement
Case Number: R.P. (Crl.) No. 219/2022