Supreme Court begins review of PMLA ruling; Enforcement Directorate says top court cannot re-evaluate its own judgment like an appeal.
New Delhi: On July 31, the Supreme Court of India began heard review petitions on Wednesday, challenging its 2022 judgment that upheld the wide-ranging powers of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The three-judge bench comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh began by hearing Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared on behalf of the review petitioners.
At the very beginning of the hearing, Kapil Sibal informed the bench,
“We’ve prepared three sets of documents.”
However, this prompted Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, representing the Enforcement Directorate, to respond,
“They have just served them now, Your Lordships.”
Disagreeing with this statement, Sibal clarified:
“No we served them two weeks ago.”
During the course of submissions, Sibal urged the court to consider clubbing similar matters together, stating:
“The other batch of matter should be clubbed here as the issue is the same.”
Justice Surya Kant advised Sibal:
“That you will have to mention before the CJI.”
To this, Sibal assured:
“I will do that I have no issue.”
He then suggested:
“Your Lordships may list it on 6th so that we can hear the whole matter together.”
Justice Kant, however, pointed out:
“Today can just be formulation of issues.”
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Reconstitutes Bench to Review ED’s Powers Under PMLA
To guide the scope of the hearing, the bench advised the counsels: “Proceed as if the whole matter is being reopened, but keep in mind the limits of a review. Start with preliminary issues.”
Sibal responded that, in that case, a complete reading of the relevant statute might be necessary:
“Then I’ll need to go through the entire Act.”
The bench then remarked: “That’s your call. We’ll first hear the preliminaries and later decide what’s worth considering. Let’s aim to wrap this up efficiently.”
After hearing the initial submissions, the bench passed an order stating:
“Since the proposed issues are arising on review, we propose to first hear the parties on maintainability and then we will proceed to hear on issues proposed to be raised by review petitioners. Eventually the questions if review are maintainable and questions which arises for consideration will be decided by us.”
Justice Kant summed up the court’s position, stating:
“We are keeping everything open and listing on 6th.”
This case is being closely watched as it challenges the constitutional validity and procedural fairness of provisions in the PMLA that were upheld in 2022.
The Supreme Court, back then, had granted vast powers to the ED, including arrest, search, seizure, and attachment of property without traditional procedural safeguards such as registration of FIR or judicial oversight at initial stages.
ALSO READ: PMLA| “1,739 Money Laundering Cases Are Under Trial”: ED Director
The present review seeks reconsideration of that stance, particularly focusing on issues of individual liberty, procedural fairness, and the role of judicial scrutiny under the PMLA.
The next hearing has been fixed for August 6, where the court is expected to take up the matter of maintainability in depth.
Background Of The Case
On July 27, 2022, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, and C.T. Ravikumar delivered a landmark judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India.
The verdict upheld the constitutional validity of key provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). It endorsed the wide-ranging powers granted to the Enforcement Directorate (ED), including powers related to arrest, search, seizure, and property attachment.
The Court also validated the stringent twin bail conditions under Section 45(1) and the presumption of guilt under Section 24, which shifts the burden of proof to the accused.
Following this ruling, several review petitions were filed challenging the judgment, including one by Congress MP Karti P. Chidambaram. These petitions contended that the judgment was flawed and required reconsideration.
During a hearing on August 7, 2024, the current Bench noted that the primary issue to be examined was whether these review petitions were essentially appeals in the guise of review.
At that time, Justice C.T. Ravikumar observed,
“Let us see whether it is an appeal in disguise or a review…”
Case Title:
Karti P. Chidambaram v. The Directorate of Enforcement, registered as R.P.(Crl.) No. 219/2022.
Click Here to Read More Reports On PMLA
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
