Supreme Court Criticises "Trend" Of Seeking Bail In Money Laundering Cases Under Guise Of Challenging PMLA Provisions

The Supreme Court on Tuesday criticised the trend of petitioners bypassing other remedies and filing Article 32 petitions before the Apex Court to directly challenge summons or seek bail under the pretence of challenging the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The vacation bench comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra was hearing a batch of petitions filed by Chhattisgarh government officials who had been implicated in the liquor scam in the State, challenging the PMLA. 

At the outset, the officials in question sought to withdraw their petitions. However, the Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Enforcement Directorate (ED) argued that the court must take a stand against what he referred to as a "trend" wherein a writ challenging the constitutionality of the Act was filed in order to get a "no coercive action order" in the effect of an anticipatory bail. He said–

"This must be deprecated in no uncertain terms. This is a new trend. I didn't want to say it but people are being approached. They're being told that instead of asking for anticipatory bail, challenge the vires- that way you'll get no coercive action. Unless your lady ship says something, it will keep going. Some observation has to be made."

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju echoed a similar submission and argued that the practice of approaching the Supreme Court with such repetitive pleas needed to stop lest there be "a floodgate of litigation".

Accordingly, the bench stated–

"The court is constrained to observe that despite the Vijay Madanlal judgment there is a trend prevailing in writ petitions filed before this Court under Article 32 challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 15 and 63 and other provisions of the PMLA, which has been decided finally, and then seek consequential relief. These reliefs are bypassing other forums which are open to the petitioners.”

In the Vijay Madanlal judgement, the Supreme Court had upheld the ED's powers related to arrest, attachment of property involved in money laundering, search, and seizure under the PMLA.

Justice Trivedi also pulled up senior counsels for not advising their clients against this practice. She said–

"The kind of practice that is going on here in this Court is very disturbing."