SC to examine if it needs to review 2022 PMLA verdict

Observing that the Supreme Court judges are "not infallible", a three-member bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul on Wednesday agreed to hear a clutch of petitions seeking to reconsider a judgment of the top court upholding relevant provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The bench has listed the matter for hearing on November 22. The arguments of both petitioners and respondents (the Centre) will be concluded on the same day, the bench ordered.

The landmark judgment, under challenge, was delivered in July 2022 by a three-member bench which held that the PMLA is a "unique and special legislation". Upholding the constitutional validity of relevant provisions of the 2002 Act, the three-member bench last year had upheld powers to hold inquiry, arrest, and attachment of property by the Directorate of Enforcement. A review of the said judgment is already pending in the SC before another bench.


At the outset, appearing on behalf of the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta raised a "preliminary objection" arguing that a coordinate bench of the same strength "cannot" examine the matter. However, the objection failed to cut ice with the bench with Justice Kaul verbally observing, "We are entitled to look into it." He further remarked that if the bench concludes that some provisions need reconsideration, the matter may then be referred to a larger (five) bench. He added that if his bench concludes that the provisions need no reconsideration, then it will dismiss the pleas.

The Solicitor General went on to urge the bench to defer the hearing by a month or two arguing that the Financial Action Task Force's (FATF) review of India's money-laundering investigations is pending. FATF is an intergovernmental organisation that works to combat money laundering. "It is in national interest to wait for a month or so," Mehta argued. He added that the instant set of petitions seeking reconsideration of provisions of PMLA are nothing but "misuse and abuse of the process of law". In response, Justice Kaul verbally remarked, "Everything is in national interest and sometimes in this hearing also... You can't prohibit them (petitioners) from arguing. We can't shut them (petitioners) out on this".

Justice Kaul asserted that the bench cannot be "precluded from laying down the contours of the hearing" while Mehta urged the bench to be "alert and alarmed."

Responding to the contention, Justice Kaul orally said, "We are alert. We will not be alarmed by any party... this is not the language for the court. I am sorry".

Justice Sanjiv Khanna, part of the bench, added that the SC is the final court. "Suppose the review and curative petitions both are dismissed and a plea is filed and the bench feels that some issues are overlooked, then it can be looked at again and larger benches can be constituted."