ED to SC: PMLA Review Pleas Aim to Reopen Settled Law Through Backdoor

The Enforcement Directorate today made its submissions before the Supreme Court arguing against the maintainability of the review petitions challenging its 2022 judgment that upheld various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

"Review cannot be made on asking...a strong case has to be made out..asking court to rewrite the judgment which is not permissible. Review cannot be an appeal in disguise.", Additional Solicitor General SV Raju told court today.

Notably, court told the ASG that it is concerned about the ED's image. "You cannot act like a crook. You have to work within the four corners of law. There is a difference between law-enforcing authorities and law-violating bodies. After 5000 cases, less than 10 convictions. We are equally concerned about the image of ED", Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said. 

Responding to this ASG Raju said that accused who were rich and powerful use a battery of lawyers and file many applications to delay the process. "They do not even allow the trial to take place and delay it," he added.

On July 31, Supreme Court had clarified that it would be hearing first the aspect of maintainability of the review petitions challenging its 2022 judgment that upheld the wide-ranging powers of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), including arrest, search, seizure, and attachment of properties.

"We will hear the parties first on maintainability and then proceed to hear on issues proposed by the petitioners. Eventually if review petitions are found maintainable, issues arising for consideration will be determined by us", a bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and NK Singh had said.

Noting that ED was justified in raising preliminary issues, Justice Kant had said, "Review has limitations. We suggest you first address the preliminary issues..You can refer to the Act..we will then decide what are the issues arising for our consideration..".

On May 7, the Court had asked Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to formulate and mutually circulate proposed issues in the batch of petitions seeking a review of its 2022 judgment that upheld the sweeping powers of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing along with Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, had then too opposed any broadening of the review’s scope, stating that the review was limited and that the petitioners’ draft “runs into four pages” and would effectively reopen the entire Act.

Recently, the Supreme Court reconstituted a three-judge bench to hear a batch of petitions seeking reconsideration of its 2022 verdict that upheld the wide-ranging powers of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The reconstitution became necessary after the retirement of Justice C.T. Ravikumar, who was earlier part of the original bench alongside Justices Kant and Bhuyan.

In August 2022, Supreme Court had issued notice in the review petition on limited purview.

A Justice AM Khanwilkar led bench of the Supreme Court on July 27, 2022 upheld the constitutional validity of various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The bench, also consisting of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar however had held that the challenge to the passage of amendments to the Act in 2019 as a money bill will be considered by a larger bench. Court further held that the supply of Enforcement Case Information Report under PMLA proceedings is not mandatory since ECIR is an internal document and cannot be equated to FIRs.

The court had upheld the constitutional validity of Section 3 which provides for definition of money laundering; Section 5 which pertains to attachment of property; Section 8(4) which provides powers to the authority to take possession of attached property; Section 17 which provides for search and seizure and Section 45 which provides for offences being cognizable and non-bailable.

Over 200 petitions were filed challenging the provisions of the Act. It was argued before the court that the powers of the Enforcement Directorate to arrest, force confessions, and seize property were unbridled.

In its 545-page judgment, the Court answered 12 questions of law formulated in the batch of petitions. A comprehensive look at the same can be found here.

Case Title: Karti P. Chidambaram vs. The Directorate of Enforcement

Hearing Date: August 7, 2025

Bench: Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh