In a surprising turn of events, the Supreme Court has disbanded the special bench responsible for revisiting the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary ruling, a decision that fortified the Directorate of Enforcement’s (ED) authority. The unforeseen dissolution came after the central government requested an extension, prompting the bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, and Bela M Trivedi, to defer the hearing due to Justice Kaul’s imminent retirement next month. This development marks a significant delay in a case that challenges the interpretation of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, based on the contentious Choudhary judgment.
The legal saga unfolded yesterday when the special bench commenced hearing challenges to the PMLA’s interpretation based on the Choudhary ruling. This ruling, handed down in July 2022, validated key provisions of the PMLA related to arrest, seizure, presumption of innocence, and stringent bail conditions.
As the petitioners concluded their arguments, Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, urged a deferment, citing the intricate nature of the issues. Despite objections from Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, Justice Kaul, anticipating his retirement, reluctantly agreed to the adjournment, expressing, “What can I do…I am doing this with a little heavy heart.”
The complexity of the case, its constitutional implications, and the need for a larger bench deliberation were underscored during the hearing. Justice Trivedi emphasized the necessity for two opposing views before referring the matter to a larger bench, adding, “There have to be reasons. And my impression is, there’s a judgment on this.”
In a candid moment after dictating the order, Justice Kaul cryptically remarked to the Solicitor General, “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’ll have that privilege from January 1.”
The courtroom witnessed heated exchanges between the union government and the bench, with objections raised against the proceedings. Last month, the government had unsuccessfully contested the bench’s authority, citing a pending review petition and an upcoming FATF mutual evaluation. Despite these objections, the court proceeded with the hearing, rejecting claims of sitting in appeal over a coordinate bench’s judgment.
Over the two days, the petitioners, represented by senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, passionately argued for the reconsideration of the Choudhary ruling. They voiced concerns over the extensive powers of the central agency, emphasizing its impact on citizens’ rights and the broader polity. Issues ranging from the classification of the PMLA to the alleged misuse of anti-money laundering legislation were passionately debated.
Notably, a review petition challenging the controversial Choudhary judgment remains pending before the Supreme Court, indicating the enduring legal turbulence surrounding this pivotal case.
