New Delhi: In the latest proceedings, the Supreme Court emphasized its jurisdictional boundaries concerning the reconsideration of a 2022 verdict that upheld the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) authority in arresting individuals and seizing properties linked to money laundering. The debate revolved around whether this ruling necessitated review by a larger bench of five judges.
During the hearing headed by a three-judge bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, the Center defended the significance of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as a crucial national legislation. Conversely, the petitioners contended that the ED had gained unchecked autonomy, describing it as an "unruly horse" with unrestrained freedom to operate.
The petition sought a reconsideration of the July 27, 2022 verdict on specific grounds, which upheld the ED's powers encompassing arrest, property attachment linked to money laundering, as well as search and seizure under the PMLA.
The bench, comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi alongside Justice Kaul, clarified the limited scope of their examination during Wednesday's proceedings. "Our focus lies in determining whether there is a necessity for a review or the absence of it. That is the limited ambit," they remarked.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners, underscored the fundamental nature of the issues concerning the rule of law, emphasizing the imperative need for a reevaluation. "My intention is not to debate whether the judgment is right or wrong. My sole contention is to preliminarily suggest that these issues, fundamental to the rule of law, demand reconsideration," Sibal stated.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Center, highlighted the petitioners' expansive arguments, deviating from the core challenge limited to sections 50 and 63 of the Act, which pertain to summoning powers and penalties for false information or non-disclosure, respectively.
Mehta opposed the amendment petition that broadly challenged various aspects of the PMLA, signaling disagreement with the premise that the 2022 verdict required reconsideration. "We oppose this amendment. If the petitioner confines arguments to sections 50 and 63, I have no objection. However, a blanket challenge based on proposed amendments will be contested," Mehta asserted.
The bench acknowledged the need to understand the scope of the petitioners' arguments before making any conclusive decisions. Throughout the day-long hearing, the bench reiterated the focal point: whether the settled legal point by the three-judge bench warranted consideration by a larger bench, emphasizing their limited authority within this context.
"We are constrained within this procedural framework. Beyond this, our mandate is not defined," Justice Kaul reiterated during the proceedings.
SC Schedules Hearing for Review Petitions in Same-Sex Marriage Case Next Week