NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday said it would first hear arguments on August 6 on the issue of maintainability of the petitions seeking a review of its July 2022 verdict that upheld the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) powers to arrest, attach properties allegedly involved in money laundering, and carry out search and seizure under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
A three-judge bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh noted that the ED has proposed three preliminary issues that primarily deal with the question of the review petitions’ maintainability. The bench said the review petitioners have proposed 13 questions for its consideration.
It noted the submissions of the questions raised by both parties and fixed the matter for further hearing on August 6.
“Since the proposed issues are arising in the review proceedings, we propose to first hear the parties on the issue of maintainability of the review petitions, followed by a hearing on the questions proposed to be raised on behalf of the review petitioners. Eventually, the questions that would finally arise for consideration will also be determined by us if we hold that the review petitions are maintainable,” the bench observed.
The Supreme Court had on 4 May 2025 reconstituted a new bench to hear a batch of review petitions filed against the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (VMC) judgment, which upheld certain provisions of the PMLA.
The VMC judgment was delivered on 27 July 2022 by a three-judge bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar, and Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and C T Ravikumar (all now retired). It upheld certain provisions of the PMLA. “Sections 5, 8 (4), 15, 17 and 19 of PMLA, relating to the Directorate's power of attachment, search and seizure, and arrest is upheld,” the top court had said.
It also, in its 27 July verdict, upheld Section 24 of the PMLA, relating to the reverse burden of proof. Similarly, Section 45 of the PMLA, which provides “twin-conditions” for bail, was upheld.
The court had delivered its verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the process of arrest, investigation, and seizure carried out by the probe agency ED, and seeking interpretation of the provisions of the PMLA.
“The arguments of proportionality of punishment regarding scheduled offences is unfounded and rejected. All transfer petitions are disposed of and relegated to the High Court,” the bench had said in its verdict.
Before the 27 July verdict, several petitions had been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the provisions of the PMLA. The petitioners had argued before the apex court that the powers of the enforcement agency to arrest, allegedly force confessions, and seize property were greatly unchecked.
The Centre, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the batch of petitions and sought their dismissal. It defended the PMLA and stated that it is a special law which has laid down its own procedures and safeguards.
The Supreme Court in its judgement had held that it was not mandatory for ED officers to disclose the grounds of arrest at the time of detaining an accused in a money laundering case.
Challenging the 27 July verdict, around eight petitions, including one by Lok Sabha Member of Parliament (MP) Karti Chidambaram, had been filed in the top court seeking a review of it.