Supreme Court Raises Concern Over Premature Listing Of Bail Plea In PMLA Case

The Supreme Court on Monday (October 14) raised concerns over the listing of a bail plea in a money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) before the scheduled date, in violation of its prior order.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih focusing on how the case was listed earlier than directed by the court.

Justice Oka remarked, “Somebody in custody makes an attempt to get matter listed in this manner, we have to be very careful about it.”

The Court observed that an explanation from the Registry, sought in a previous order, was still not on record. After the counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been in custody for a long time, Justice Oka it will have to be examined who had played a role in altering the listing.

“We have to examine this - how the dates are preponed without this court coming into picture. We will not proceed unless we are satisfied who has played a role in all this”, he said.

The bench ordered the Registry to ensure that the explanation from the listing branch is placed before the Court by the following Monday. The office report, which referenced the explanation, was noted, but the Court emphasized that the explanation itself had not been submitted.

In its order, the Court stated: “The office report refers to explanation submitted by the listing branch. The same is not on record. Registry to ensure that explanation is placed before this court on next Monday.”

The Court on September 20 had sought an explanation from its Registry for listing the bail plea ahead of the scheduled date, October 14, contrary to its prior directions. During that hearing, Justice Oka had expressed concern over potential manipulation of the listing process, remarking, “Somebody goes to the registry and manipulates, we will not tolerate it. As far as this bench is concerned, we have taken the registry to task so many times.”

The Supreme Court has repeatedly voiced its displeasure regarding the functioning of its Registry. In previous instances, the Court has criticized the Registry for failing to list cases in compliance with judicial orders. In August, a bench comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih had sought an explanation for a case not being listed as ordered by the Court. Similar concerns have been raised in other cases, with the Registry being called out for procedural lapses.

Case no. – SLP (Crl.) No. 9374/2024

Case Title – Zeeshan Haider v. Directorate of Enforcement