New Delhi: A three-judge Supreme Court bench hearing petitions seeking reconsideration of the court’s 2022 verdict upholding a slew of contentious provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was dissolved abruptly Thursday.
This bench commenced hearing on the petitions Wednesday, after brushing aside the central government’s vehement opposition to them.
Led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi, the bench deferred the hearing by two months when Solicitor General Tushar Mehta urged them to let him argue on another date. Justice Kaul observed that he is on a “deadline”.
Justice Kaul, who has in the past criticised the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for misusing its powers, particularly in Opposition-ruled states, is due to retire on 25 December. His observations against the ED’s conduct were made while a bench led by him heard petitions arising out of the agency’s raids in Chhattisgarh against the state’s civil servants as well as politicians belonging to the ruling Congress there.
As the top court closes on 18 December for winter break, Justice Kaul’s last working day in office would be 15 December.
In this backdrop, the judge said he has a “few things to wind up before demitting office” and that he “will not be able to take the burden (of hearing or writing the verdict in the PMLA matter)”.
“What can I do…I am doing this with a little heavy heart,” Justice Kaul told senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who argued for one of the petitioners. The court asked Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud to constitute a new bench to hear the batch of petitions, which, according to the order, would not be heard after two months.
Justice Kaul also agreed to adjourn the hearing when Mehta said that the three-judge bench would have to give a detailed order that should contain reasons for making the reference. Justice Trivedi, who was on the three-judge bench that upheld the PMLA, concurred with Mehta on the same.
“We have to express some views before referring this (to a larger bench) because the larger bench must have two views before it. Otherwise, it will be very easy to refer matters. There have to be reasons,” she said.
Finally, dictating the order, Justice Kaul said: “The matter has been heard till 3 pm. The learned solicitor general submits that in view of arguments made, he will need time to examine these issues and seeks deferment. Deferment would leave no time for this court to pen down the order.”
In doing so, the bench also allowed the petitioners’ application to challenge certain other aspects of the PMLA that were not mentioned in their original pleadings, which challenge sections 50 and 63 of the Act. The two provisions pertain to the ED’s power to summon witnesses, extract confessions and press for punishment to summon witnesses.
The court said: “In view of the deferment now taking place and looking to the nature of the challenge which is constitutional in its basis, and whether a case has been made out for referring some aspect to a larger bench, the amendment application is allowed.” This direction widens the scope of the petitions that were earlier restricted to only two points.
‘We see & hear many things, but we don’t say many things’
After dictating the order, Justice Kaul orally remarked: “Mr Solicitor, we understand everything. On this side, we see and hear many things, but we don’t say many things. On a lighter note, I will have the privilege from January 1 (after retirement).”
Mehta’s request to let him commence his side of arguments came after the petitioners concluded their arguments on why the 2022 SC verdict in the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary versus Union of India case should be referred to a larger bench of five judges for a reconsideration. The petitioners had begun their arguments Wednesday.
Mehta asked for more time claiming the issues raised in the case were complex and the petitioners had done a “very selective reading” of their case. “If your Lordships are not taken through the entirety of the act and its purpose, you may not get sufficient assistance,” he told the bench.
On Wednesday, Mehta objected to the manner in which the petitioners were arguing beyond their challenge to sections 50 and 63 of the PMLA. He maintained that it was not within their remit as they had not filed a review petition against the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary verdict.
He informed the bench that a review petition against the 2022 judgment is already pending before another three-judges bench. Notice on this petition was issued on two limited issues — whether a person being arrested can be denied a copy of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and whether the law can ascribe presumption of guilt on an accused as against the presumption of innocence.
(Edited by Gitanjali Das)
Also Read: ED expected to be ‘transparent, not vindictive’, must furnish grounds of arrest to accused, says SC