PMLA Judgment Reconsideration : Live Updates From Supreme Court Hearing

ASG SV Raju: I'm sorry to interrupt, but my learned friend is digressing from his argument on Sections 50 and 63.

Sibal: Please don't interrupt. As it is, we have lost a lot of time because of your enlightened comments...

Kaul: If there's continuous punctuation. Solicitor has raised the point. You can't interrupt like this.

ASG: We have prepared ourselves on Sections 50 and 63. This is unfair to us.

Khanna J: Your first question is that Vijay Madanlal holding that PMLA is a sui generis statute and as such the self-incrimination bar would not apply is wrong...

Sibal: Not just that, there is a distinction between inquiry and investigation in S 50 itself. But the court holds that there is no distinction. How can the provision be interpreted this way? There are separate definitions. I'm raising fundamental questions regarding the rule of law.

Sibal: Your Lordships will have to decide whether an explanation in the statute can override the main provision (Section 3). The court says no, it's clarificatory, and therefore, the meaning of the section changes.

Sibal: The convention provides a basis for domestic law, but does not prescribe [specific provisions]. We have reached a stage where the ED can go anywhere. It doesn't also tell you whether you are being summoned as a witness or an accused. PMLA provisions need to be tested on the anvil of our constitutional principles. 

Sibal: There are two international conventions: Vienna Convention relating to drug trafficking and Palermo Convention relating to transnational organised crime...

Sibal: The court held that these are the conventions on the basis of which we made our laws. Vijay Madanlal said that PMLA is a sui generis statute.

Trivedi J: Where in your petition have you raised this? Let's see that.

Kaul J: Let's hear the point first. Then we'll get into the nitty-gritty.

Sibal: I'm not here to convince whether Vijay Madanlal is right or wrong. I'm only here to convince Your Lordships that the issues are so fundamental to the rule of law that it requires a larger consideration by a bench of five judges.

Kaul J: Let us allow the case to be opened. We may agree with the solicitor, we may not. But it is not fair if the court is not allowed to proceed. Let us proceed.

SG Mehta continues arguing.

Kaul J: How many times do I have to repeat that I have understood your point? Let the respondent open his case. 

Khanna J: You have not challenged S 45...

Singhvi takes the court through the prayer of a petition, arguing that the issue relating to the interpretation of Section 45 also arose here. 

Khanna J: This judgment is primarily on question of whether it will be a continuing offence because scheduled offence was later.

Sibal: Therefore, they say as long as they are in possession of crimes, it will be a continuing offence. Therefore, Section 3 will have to be interpreted.

SG Mehta: We can withdraw this SLP.

Sibal: Now they want to withdraw the SLP. 

Sibal: In the high court, the petitioner succeeded on all grounds. The ED then challenged that in SC.

Khanna J: In Vijay Madanlal, there's vires challenge and interpretation. The HC judgment is already there, vires could not have been struck down.

Sibal: This was prior to Vijay Madanlal.

Khanna J: All right, let's look at the petitions.

Khanna J: Even on the last day, this issue was raised by [ED]. It was said that all issues were already raised. What they are saying is that the prayers made in these petitions are qua Sections 50 and 63...