PMLA: Centre flags repeated challenges but Supreme Court says it has power to constitute larger bench to reexamine its judgment

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to defer the hearing in a batch of pleas seeking reconsideration of its judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. Union of India which had upheld various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). .Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the Central government, requested that the hearing in the matter should be deferred till conclusion of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). "It is in national interest to wait for a month or two. Every section being challenged can it again be challenged this way? Please be alert and alarmed," the SG said.A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi, however, said that the apex court cannot be prevented from hearing the matter and laying out its contours."You cannot prohibit petitioners from arguing. National interest is in everything and sometimes in hearing this also. Constitutional jurisprudence of this court has evolved - 2-judges matter goes to 3 judges, 3 judges then sent to 5 judges ... We are alert but we won't be alarmed by any party ... Sometimes one side thinks we are faced with adverse orders already. You cannot prevent us to lay down the contours of hearing," Justice Kaul remarked. The Solicitor General flagged the repeated challenges being raised before the Court against PMLA provisions despite the top court upholding the provisions in Vijay Madanlal judgment."Can I bring a petition tomorrow before a 5-judge bench that we do not agree with same-sex judgment then can it be referred to a larger bench?"Justice Kaul replied saying,"Of course they can."Justice Khanna weighed in saying that the Supreme Court is always free to constitute larger benches to reexamine Constitutional issues decided by it."We are the final court. Suppose review is dismissed, curative is dismissed, and that plea again comes and the bench feels that some issues are overlooked. Then it can be looked at again, and we form larger benches. When we finally decide a matter then power of judicial review has to be larger and at times power of appellate court has to be wider. We are not saying decision is incorrect, but nuances have been raised and we will hear the same and see if it merits hearing."The matter will be heard again on November 22..In November 2017, a bench of Justices Kaul and Rohinton Nariman had struck down Section 45(1) of the PMLA to the extent it imposed two additional conditions for grant of bail to money laundering accused.However, this decision was overruled in July 2022 by a bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. Union of India.In that ruling, the Court upheld the validity of several other provisions of the Act including Sections 3 (definition of money laundering), 5 (attachment of property), 8(4) [taking possession of attached property), 17 (search and seizure), 18 (search of persons), 19 (powers of arrest), 24 (reverse burden of proof), 44 (offences triable by special court), 45 (offences being cognizable and non-bailable and twin conditions for grant of bail by court) and 50 (statements made to ED officials).The Supreme Court also held that the supply of Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) under PMLA proceedings is not mandatory since ECIR is an internal document and cannot be equated to a First Information Report (FIR).Further, it rejected the argument about proportionality of punishment under PMLA with respect to scheduled offences as wholly "unfounded".The 2022 ruling invited vehement criticism and led to several review applications being filed.The same are pending before the top court.Meanwhile, new petitions were filed challenging PMLA which came up before the top court today..The SG at the outset today said the batch of pleas were an abuse of the process of the law and not maintainable.When he vehemently opposed counsel for the respondents from arguing on merits, Justice Kaul said,"In my court at least it cannot be that we do not hear one side. We have to hear.".Sibal argued that the PMLA is in effect a penal statute, yet grounds are not furnished during summons of accused. Further, the complaint copy is not furnished to the accused.Justice Kaul then made it clear that not all pleas in the batch could be heard by the 3-judge bench, and only few of the petitions on certain points of law would be."Also remember minority judgments are sometimes for the future. We have considered minority delivered in 1980s for judgments now. Interpretations have forever evolved," he said as the hearing drew to a close..Retired Supreme Court judge Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman had in March this year termed the Vijay Madanlal decision very unfortunate.Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) UU Lalit had in November last year, opined that in Indian criminal jurisprudence, the principle is not guilty, until proven to be guilty.The Supreme Court had in August last year, issued notice to the Central government in review plea filed by Congress leader Karti Chidambaram challenging the Vijay Madanlal ruling.In March, this year, a bench led by Justice Kaul also sought the response of the Central government and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on a plea challenging the validity of Sections 50 and 63 of the PMLA.Section 50 of the PMLA deals with powers regarding summons, production of documents and giving evidence etc.Section 63 deals with punishment for furnishing false information or for failure to provide information.