PMLA judgment Review: SG Mehta seeks time citing 'sudden' listing, Supreme Court to hear petitions from August 28

Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

"We have to see if this is an appeal in disguise..", the bench observed today after Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal said, "This judgment is wrong and needs reconsideration.."

The Supreme Court of India will be hearing the review petition filed by Karti Chidambaram against the judgment upholding the constitutional validity of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) on August 28.

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

Notably, yesterday a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, CT Ravikumar and Ujjal Bhuyan was notified for hearing the review petitions.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta sought time from court submitted before Justice Kant today, "This has come up suddenly, we need some time to prepare..please have this at a later date..".

Agreeing, Justice Kant said, "Yes the list was updated after 9 PM yesterday..".

"We will list on August 28th..will start around 11AM..there are some legal issues where there is some error as per our understanding..", court further ordered.

A bench of the then Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, retired Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice CT Ravikumar had issued notice on the limited aspects, which includes:

  1. Regarding the absence of a legal requirement to provide ECIR copy;
  2. Reversal of whether the presumption of innocence required consideration.

Court had earlier allowed an open court hearing in the review petition.

A Justice AM Khanwilkar led bench of the top 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. 

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