Review petitioners have challenged the Supreme Court’s 2022 PMLA verdict by raising 13 key constitutional questions. The top court will first decide if these petitions are even maintainable.
New Delhi: On July 31, the Supreme Court of India said that it will first examine whether the review petitions challenging its 2022 judgment in the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India case are legally maintainable before moving on to consider the main legal questions.
The case had upheld the wide-ranging powers of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The review petition in question was filed by Congress MP Karti P. Chidambaram and others.
A three-judge Bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, and N.K. Singh was hearing a group of review petitions filed against the July 2022 judgment.
The Bench observed that since the case involves a review of an earlier decision, there are “certain limitations” in how much the Court can interfere. However, it also stated,
“we would keep everything open”
at this early stage.
The Court directed senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who is appearing for the petitioners, to first address the basic or preliminary issues raised.
The Bench said,
“We suggest you first address the preliminary issues.”
The hearing is expected to resume on August 6, 2025.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED), in response to the review petitions, raised three main objections:
- Does the review petition show an “error apparent on the face of the record” in the 2022 judgment?
- Is the review petition actually just an appeal in disguise, and should it be dismissed for that reason?
- In light of the Supreme Court’s earlier order dated August 25, 2022, should the review be limited only to the two issues: (i) whether the ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report) must be shared with the accused and (ii) the constitutional validity of the reverse burden of proof under Section 24 of PMLA?
The petitioners, including several individuals accused in different PMLA cases, argue that the 2022 ruling goes against basic principles of criminal law. They mainly oppose the following parts of the judgment:
- That the accused need not be given a copy of the ECIR.
- That the burden of proof is placed on the accused under Section 24.
- That the bail conditions under Section 45 are too harsh.
The petitioners argue that these rulings violate the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and weaken the presumption of innocence that is central to criminal law.
They have asked the Court to consider 13 major questions while reviewing the judgment. These include:
- Whether the Court should have first checked if the amendments to PMLA, done through Money Bills, were unconstitutional?
- (a) Whether the Court made a mistake by interpreting the word “and” in Section 3 as “or”, which makes the offence of money laundering easier to prove?
- (b) Whether this interpretation wrongly combines the scheduled offence with money laundering and removes their legal separation?
- Whether declaring money laundering as a “continuing offence” applies the law retrospectively and violates Articles 20 and 21?
- Whether calling the PMLA a sui generis (special) law rather than a penal law was wrong?
- Whether allowing ED to collect testimony under Section 50 amounts to forced self-incrimination and violates Articles 19, 20(3), and 21?
- Whether it was incorrect to say that ED officers are not “police officers”?
- Whether, under Section 65 of PMLA, the CrPC should apply wherever it is not inconsistent, and whether the Court wrongly ignored this?
- Whether not giving the ECIR to the accused violates Article 21 and basic fairness?
- Whether the Court made an error by reviving the old bail conditions under Section 45, which were removed by Parliament in 2018?
- Whether Section 45 should have been struck down again for violating Articles 14, 19, and 21?
- Whether the Court wrongly expanded Section 5 by allowing property to be attached even without a registered scheduled offence?
- Whether upholding the reverse burden of proof is a clear legal mistake that causes injustice?
- Whether allowing PMLA trials to proceed separately from the trial of the scheduled offence (as per Explanation (i) to Section 44(1)(d)) was legally incorrect?
The Supreme Court clarified that it would only look into these thirteen issues if it finds the review petitions maintainable.
In the original Vijay Madanlal judgment delivered in July 2022, the Supreme Court had upheld several controversial ED powers.
It ruled that ED officers are not police officers and that the ED’s actions are part of a unique type of inquiry that doesn’t follow the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
ALSO READ: PMLA| “1,739 Money Laundering Cases Are Under Trial”: ED Director
The Court had also said that the ECIR is not the same as an FIR and need not be shared with the accused. At that time, the Court said,
“ED only has to disclose the grounds of arrest, not the ECIR itself.”
It also upheld the bail conditions under Section 45, which require an accused person to prove they are innocent and that they will not commit another offence if released on bail. These rules were described as valid under the Constitution.
The 2022 judgment faced strong criticism from legal experts, civil society, and opposition political parties. They argued that the ruling gives too much power to the ED and is often used to target political opponents.
Soon after the decision, several review petitions were filed. The first one was by Congress MP Karti Chidambaram in August 2022.
On August 25, 2022, a Bench led by then Chief Justice N.V. Ramana agreed to consider reviewing the judgment.
It said that two specific points — whether the ECIR must be given to the accused, and whether the reverse burden clause under Section 24 is constitutional —
“prima facie require reconsideration.”
Later, other accused persons in PMLA cases also filed review petitions. These included Amanpreet Singh Gandhi, Jagjit Singh Chahal (accused in a drug trafficking case), Nama Seethaiah (bank fraud case), Congress leader Sarwan Singh Phillaur, and Bharat Das Vaishnav.
All these petitions were combined and have been listed for hearings multiple times between August 2024 and October 2024.
As of now, the Court has not given a final ruling on any of the issues raised. It will first decide if the petitions meet the strict legal requirements for a review.
Only if they do, will the Court move forward to hear arguments on the 13 detailed questions.
Case Title:
Karti P Chidambaram v. The Directorate of Enforcement
Click Here to Read More Reports On PMLA
