PMLA | Supreme Court Adjourns Pleas Seeking Reconsideration Of Vijay Madanlal Judgment To August 5
The Supreme Court today (on July 22) said that it will hear the pleas calling for reconsideration of the judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, which upheld the constitutional validity of various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), on August 5. As per the earlier order, the bench was supposed to start hearing the matter tomorrow. However,...
The Supreme Court today (on July 22) said that it will hear the pleas calling for reconsideration of the judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, which upheld the constitutional validity of various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), on August 5.
As per the earlier order, the bench was supposed to start hearing the matter tomorrow. However, today, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, during a courtroom hearing before a bench led by Justice Sanjiv Khanna, submitted that Additional Solicitor General S.V Raju is having some personal difficulties.
"There is some personal difficulty. Mr. Raju is in some real personal difficulty in Ahmedabad.," submitted Mehta. Following this, he pleaded with the Court to post the matter for hearing anytime after two weeks.
Keeping this in view, the Court posted the matter on August 5.
It may be recalled that on November 23, 2023, a Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, and Bela M Trivedi, which was earlier hearing the instant pleas, was dissolved, as the union government sought more time to prepare, and Justice Kaul was set to retire in a month. Considering the circumstances, a request was made to the Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, to constitute another Bench, and it led to the replacement of Justice Kaul by Justice Sundresh.
In March, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (appearing for some of the petitioners) underscored the urgency of this matter. Following this, the Special Bench ordered the listing of the matters on July 23rd, 24th, and 25th, 2024. However, the same was made subject to the CJI's orders.
Besides this, the Bench permitted petitioners/appellants to file bail applications before appropriate forums, which shall be dealt with in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the fact that the present petitions/appeals are pending before the Supreme Court.
In proceedings before the earlier Bench, although Solicitor General Tushar Mehta claimed that the 3-Judge bench did not have the prerogative to hear the pleas and or 'sit in appeal' over the Coordinate bench's judgment in Vijay Madanlal, the objections were insufficient to persuade the court to defer hearing.
Pertinently, in those proceedings, concerns about the classification of the PMLA as a regulatory rather than a penal statute, ambiguity regarding the capacity in which the agency summons an individual, and the non-supply of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) were highlighted, among other things.
Besides the instant pleas, a review petition against the Vijay Madanlal judgment is pending before the top court, which is yet to be listed.
Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. M/s Obulapuram Mining Company Private Limited | Criminal Appeal No. 1269 of 2017 (and connected matters)