New Delhi: In a new twist, after two days of hearing, the Supreme Court Thursday deferred the hearing on a batch of pleas seeking reconsideration of the July 2022 judgment of the apex court upholding the validity of the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
After Solicitor General Tushar Mehta sought more time to make submissions, a three-judge bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul decided to defer the hearing, as Justice Kaul is retiring next month.
Justice Kaul said: “a deferment would really leave no time for this court to pen down the order….the nature of challenge which is constitutional in its basis, whether a case has been made referring some or any aspects to a larger bench, the amendment application is allowed. The amended petition is taken on record. Counter affidavit to the amended to be filed in four weeks. Rejoinder be filed in four weeks thereafter. The Chief Justice of India would have to reconstitute a bench in view of one of us demitting office. Necessary orders be obtained from the Chief Justice of India”.
Mehta submitted that in view of arguments made, he will need time to examine these issues and sought deferment. Allowing Mehta’s request, the bench agreed to adjourn the hearing. “What can I do…I am doing this with a little heavy heart….”, said justice Kaul. The apex court allowed Centre time to respond to amended pleas by petitioners challenging some sections of PMLA other than original Sections 50, 63.
During the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Congress leader Govind Singh, contended that the matter is regarding reference to a larger bench and it does not need a judgment.
The petitioners have attempted to convince the court to refer the matter to 5-judge bench on the pretext that Vijay Madan Lal Chaudhary judgment (2022 PMLA verdict, which was delivered by a three-judge bench) is incorrect.
The bench, also comprising justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi, said, “we cannot look at it cursorily, it requires deliberation….”. Justice Trivedi said her view is that the court would have to express some views while referring it to a larger bench.
The bench said one has to give some reasons for referral, and “not merely because we may not agree with the previous view….”. Sibal said please do not let it go to waste. Justice Khanna said no, Mr Sibal the use of that word is objectionable, and “you should not have used that word. You could have said it differently…..”.
On Wednesday, Sibal had submitted before the bench, “We have reached a stage where the ED, and I quote and I use this expression intentionally, is an unruly horse. It can go anywhere it wants. And what it does is. It does not tell you whether you are being called as a witness or an accused…”. While the Centre’s counsel argued that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was an “important legislation” for the nation.
The apex court had told senior advocate Kapil Sibal assisted by advocate Sumeer Sodhi, that the review jurisdiction is limited. Sibal said at the moment my lords can hear whether it needs a larger bench. The bench said the contours seem to be whether the decision of the 3-judge bench needs reconsideration by a larger bench of 5 judges. “I think only that is before ... Beyond that we do not have a mandate to go ...”, said justice Kaul.
