Supreme Court To First Decide Maintainability Of Review Petitions Against 2022 PMLA Verdict; ED Says Court Cannot Sit In Appeal

A Bench of Justice Surya Kant, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh said, “We’ll see what the preliminary issues are and later what can be actually taken into consideration. Instead of spilling the hearing, we’ll wind up the matter.”

Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the Petitioners. Additional Solicitor General SV Raju appeared for the Enforcement Directorate.

At the outset, ASG Raju submitted, “The preliminary issue is whether the review petition satisfies the threshold of maintainability. They are saying Vijay Madanlal… They can’t ask this Court to sit in appeal.” He said the petitioners were attempting to reopen settled findings from the 2022 judgment.

Justice Surya Kant said, “Let us go through the orders first.” Sibal referred to the August 2020 order issuing notice on the review petition and pointed out that it was not limited to two issues. “There’s a full notice. It’s not limited to ‘only’ two issues but ‘at least’ two issues,” he said.

Sibal urged that another batch of matters, heard earlier by Justice Kaul, be tagged with the present set. “Those should also come here… the issues are identical,” he said. Justice Kant responded, “For that, you need to mention before the CJI.” ASG Raju interjected, “SG is on his legs…” to which Sibal said, “Your Lordships have listed on 6th… we can argue then… today was only for issues to be considered.”

Sibal clarified that “today’s date was only for formulation of issues. For hearing it is listed on 6th. We’ll get the other matter tagged with this by then.”

Justice Surya Kant remarked, “Obviously you’ll proceed on the premise as if the entire matter has to be reopened. All of us are aware that review has a certain limitation. We’ll suggest you first address the preliminary issues.” Sibal said he would have to “go through the entire Act again.” Justice Kant responded, “That’s up to you. We’ll see what the preliminary issues are and later what can be actually taken into consideration. Instead of spilling the hearing, we’ll wind up the matter.”

In its order, the Court recorded, “With reference to the previous order, the ED has proposed three preliminary issues which are primarily on the question of maintainability. The petitioners have proposed thirteen questions for our consideration.” It noted that since these proposed issues arise in the context of review proceedings, the Court would first hear the parties on the issue of maintainability, and thereafter consider the questions raised in the review petitions. “Eventually the questions that may arise for consideration, if it is found that the review petitions are maintainable, will also be determined by us,” the order stated.

Justice Surya Kant said in court, “We are just keeping everything open.”

The matter will now be listed on August 6, 2025.

Background

On July 27, 2022, a three-judge Bench comprising Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice C.T. Ravikumar delivered its judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, upholding the constitutional validity of several provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Court affirmed the broad powers of the Enforcement Directorate relating to arrest, search, seizure, and attachment of property, and upheld the twin bail conditions under Section 45(1) and the reverse burden of proof under Section 24.

Multiple review petitions were filed against the judgment, including one by Congress MP Karti P. Chidambaram, arguing that the ruling contained grave errors warranting reconsideration. On August 7, 2024, the present Bench had observed that the first issue to be considered was whether the review petitions were in substance appeals. Justice Ravikumar had then remarked, “Let us see whether it is an appeal in disguise or a review…”

Cause Title: Karti P Chidambaram v. The Directorate of Enforcement (R.P.(Crl.) No.219/2022)

.