PMLA Verdict Review: Supreme Court Reconstitutes Bench To Hear Review Petitions Pending Since 2022

The Supreme Court has formed a new three-judge bench of the Supreme Court to hear the review petitions challenging its July 2022 judgment of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, which upheld the constitutional validity of several provisions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

A CJI Surya Kant led bench also comprising justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana will now hear the review pleas. The decision to place the review petitions before the new bench was taken on Thursday after the parties consented to the change in bench composition.

The matter was earlier listed before a bench comprising CJI Kant and justices Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh. “If we list it before the original Bench, then three benches will have to be broken. I have only listed this matter so that your consent can be recorded for the bench allocation,” the CJI said.

Last year, the Enforcement Directorate had 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.

Last year too Court had 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 had 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 20, 2026