DESPITE VEHEMENT objections from the Centre and Enforcement Directorate regarding procedure, the Supreme Court decided Wednesday to go ahead with the hearing of a batch of pleas seeking reconsideration of its July 2022 judgment upholding provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and the probe agency’s powers under it. “Sorry, there is nothing which says may not. If we are not inclined, we will not,” said Justice S K Kaul, presiding over a three-judge bench, as Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and ED, protested the court taking up fresh pleas while the review petition against the judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs Union of India is pending. The hearing saw sharp exchanges between SG Mehta and Justice Kaul, with the former emphatically saying, “Your Lordships cannot look into it”, and the latter saying, “I have never seen you so agitated”. “Question is, are you Lordship expected to sit in appeal over the coordinate bench (the July 2022 ruling was also by a three-judge bench) decision? The review is pending. The review is yet to be heard on which I would like to address first,” the SG told the bench, also comprising Justices Sanjeev Khanna and Bela M Trivedi. Justice Kaul said some of the petitions raised questions regarding the 2022 ruling and “we felt it may require some hearing whether that view taken is correct or not…. Five-judge bench is not constituted from the beginning. Two judges refer to three judges, three judges refer to five judges. Certainly we are entitled to look into it, and [maybe] say this is meaningless, this is considered. But if three judges feel some aspects require a relook at the principle of law, certainly we are not constrained by any norms to say that we cannot look into it or refer it to a larger bench”. The SG asked: “But can I bring a petition tomorrow before a five-judge bench or three-judge bench that I don’t agree with the same-sex judgment, you please reconsider it. And suppose it goes to another coordinate bench, can that coordinate bench refer it to a larger bench?” “Yes. If a three-judge bench comes to a conclusion. we do it every day,” said Justice Kaul. When Mehta said that “there are judgments which say Your Lordships may not do”, Justice Kaul said: “Sorry, there is nothing which says may not. If we are not inclined, we will not.” With the SG refusing to budge, Justice Kaul asked if he was saying “that there can never be a reference from a three-judge bench to a larger bench?” The SG responded: “There can never be a petition filed challenging the validity of the same provisions saying that according to me on some grounds it has some problem.” Mehta said he was aware of some of the prima facie observations of the bench and added: “But this is wider than individuals involved, or our respective egos involved…”. He submitted that PMLA is a global response and unlike other laws, it was enacted by Parliament on recommendations of FATF. “They (FATF) conduct mutual evaluation. They then put us on a list which is responsible for the country getting financial assistance from international funding agencies,” the SG said. “Therefore, your lordships may await the FATF evaluation. Otherwise, it would have serious implications. I don’t see any urgency.” When the court rejected the request, he said: “If Your Lordships are going into the merits despite my submission that it may be in national interest to wait for a month or so.” To this, Justice Kaul said: “Everything is in national interest. Sometimes scrutiny is also in national interest.” The court will hear the matter next on November 22. Justice Kaul retires on December 25.
