Read Time: 06 minutes
On two earlier dates, court had adjourned hearing in the case, on request being made by the parties concerned
The Supreme Court today expressed its displeasure over an adjournment being sought on behalf of Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal in the review petitions filed against the judgment upholding the constitutional validity of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
A bench of Justice Surya Kant, CT Ravikumar and Ujjal Bhuyan was told today that Sibal, who is appearing on behalf of Karti Chidambaram, was on his legs before another court in a part hear matter.
Hearing this Justice Kant said, "This is what happens, when we don't list the matter Mr. Sibal, Dr Singhvi, so and so, they will pounce upon the court and say no no no...the entire great urgency is today only..".
When court was told that Solicitor General Tushar Mehta was also occupied, Advocate Zoheb Hossain clarified that he was not opposing the request for adjournment.
The bench went on to list the case for 27th November.
Top Court had last month too adjourned hearing in the instant batch of petitions on Solicitor General Tushar Mehta request that he had not received copy of all the petitions filed against the judgment.
Earlier, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal had mentioned the issue of listing the review petitions filed by Karti Chidambaram and others before a Justice Surya Kant led bench, which had agreed to list the petitions, i.e., September 18.
When the petitions were listed in August, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had sought time from court submitting, "This has come up suddenly, we need some time to prepare..please have this at a later date..".
In August 2022, Supreme Court had issued notice in the review petition on limited purview.
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:
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 Chidambaram vs. Union of India
Please Login or Register
