SC dissolves bench over Vijay Madanlal Choudhary ruling on ED Powers

On Thursday, the Supreme Court disbanded the panel formed to review a set of applications seeking a reevaluation of its Vijay Madanlal Choudhary decision, which affirmed the authority of the Directorate of Enforcement (ED).

Following the Union Government's request for an extension, the special bench, consisting of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, and Bela M Trivedi, opted to postpone the hearing due to Justice Kaul's impending retirement next month. The bench has urged the Chief Justice of India to form a new bench to address the issue. The next scheduled hearing will take place in two months.

The Special Bench commenced the hearing yesterday to challenge the interpretation of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, as per the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary judgment. This ruling, issued in July 2022, affirmed the constitutional validity of various provisions within the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, including those related to arrest, seizure, presumption of innocence, and the imposition of stringent bail conditions.

According to a report of LiveLaw, Responding to Solicitor General’s request for the hearing to be deferred, Justice Kaul, alluding to his imminent retirement (on December 15), said, The problem is that I am on a deadline. I will not be able to take the burden. I have a few things to wind up before demitting office. Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, however, insisted on being granted an adjournment, saying, “A very selective reading has been done. If Your Lordships are not taken through the entirety of the act and its purpose, you may not get sufficient assistance.

He also pointed out that a coordinate bench will have to record some reasons for referring the the decision to a larger bench. Justice Trivedi also expressed similar views, saying, We have to express some views before referring this because the larger bench must have two views before it. Otherwise, it'll be very easy to refer matters. There have to be reasons. And my impression is, there’s a judgment on this, Live Law reported.