The SupremeCourt will continue hearing a batch of applications seeking reconsideration of its judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary which upheld the constitutional validity of several PMLA provisions relating to arrest, search and seizure, etc.A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi is hearing the matter. Yesterday, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal...
The SupremeCourt will continue hearing a batch of applications seeking reconsideration of its judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary which upheld the constitutional validity of several PMLA provisions relating to arrest, search and seizure, etc.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi is hearing the matter. Yesterday, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal made arguments on behalf of the petitioner. Reports about yesterday's hearing can be read here and here.
Live updates from today's hearing can be read here :
Kaul J: Mr Solicitor, we understand everything. On this side, we see and hear many things, but we don't say many things. On a lighter note, I'll have that privilege from January 1.
Bench rises.
Justice Kaul continues pronouncing order -
"Chief justice would have to reconstitute the bench in view of one of us demiting office. Necessary orders be obtained from the chief justice."
Khanna J: You want to file a reply to the amendment? The amendment can be allowed.
Kaul J: They will not oppose the amendment now.
Adds, "In view of deferment now taking place and looking to nature of challenge which is constitutional in its basis, and whether a case has been made out for referring some aspects to a larger bench, the amendment application is allowed. Amended petition is taken on record. Counter-affidavit to amended petition to be filed within 4 weeks. Rejoinder to be filed within 4 weeks thereafter..."
Justice Kaul begins pronouncing order -
"Matter has been heard till 3PM. SG says in view of arguments made, he will need time to examine this issue and seeks deferment. Deferment would leave no time for this court to pen down this order."
Kaul J: It'll be better if you do not withdraw your amendment application. What can I do...With a little heavy heart I'm doing this.
SG Mehta: My Lord Justice Kaul has seen our efforts to get Vijay Madanlal heard...
Sibal: We have seen a lot.
Kaul J: Sometimes, things must be left unsaid.
SG Mehta: There's a judgment that says a differing bench will have to record some reason for their disagreement with a coordinate bench.
Trivedi J: There must be two views. Otherwise, it'll be very easy to refer matters. There have to be reasons.
Kaul J: One of the questions that arises is whether we can refer this matter to larger bench without expressing any view.
Trivedi J: My view is also that we have to express some views. Because the larger bench must have two views before it. And my impression is, there's a judgment on this.
Sibal protests. Bench is seen discussing.
Kaul J: When you say that you need another day. But that day is not available.
Sibal argues that this does not require a detailed consideration because the limited question is whether to refer the matter to a larger bench.
Khanna J: Another consideration is that man-made laws now take precedence over divine law. How do you define economic offence?
SG Mehta: Fortunately, in the entire scheme, it only says money laundering...
Khanna J: Let me tell you, ED fails to deduct. That's an economic offence. Happens day in and day out. If we were to treat it in the literal sense...So, how do you define an economic offence?
Khanna J: There's also an issue regarding the shifting of onus. You'll have to answer that as well.
Khanna J: Benami decision by a coordinate bench of three judges has dealt with continuing offence and doubted on certain aspects. Keep that in mind.
SG Mehta: We have filed a review in that, there are serious concerns.
Khanna J: That's a separate issue. Your position is that till the review is decided, the judgment is binding.