The Central Government in the Supreme Court today has expressed its disagreement with the overall stance of the petitions challenging the verdict in the case of Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors., where the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, were upheld. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, addressing a special 3-judge bench, stated that while challenges to Sections 50 and 63 are acceptable, arguments beyond that scope will be opposed.

When Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the bench comprising Justices SK Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, and Bela Trivedi that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is crucial legislation for the nation, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal reacted by stating, "If government lawyers make such arguments, then where are we headed?".

Solicitor General Mehta responded by saying, "Government lawyers cannot provide interviews on an issue and subsequently argue the same matter in court."

Previously, the Supreme Court had declined to defer the review hearing in the pleas. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had apprised the court that the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) evaluation was set to begin on November 4, emphasizing that questioning the legislation at this juncture would carry significant implications for national interest.

He further conveyed to the bench, "This is more significant than the individuals involved and our egos; it's not an isolated offense. There is a global response, and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is legislation crafted in accordance with recommendations issued by FATF."

In his argument against the review, the Solicitor General asserted that he could present his disagreement with the perspective of a coordinate bench before a three-judge bench. He suggested that every section upheld in the previous judgment could be contested once more. In response, the bench remarked, "Is it written in stone that the court will never reconsider a decision made by a five-judge bench?"

Last month, Justice SK Kaul, a member of the three-judge special bench formed to adjudicate the review petition challenging the court's judgment on the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), disclosed in court that the bench, which also includes Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Bela M Trivedi, would initiate the hearing on October 18, 2023.

In August 2022, the Supreme Court had issued a notice in the review petition filed by Karti Chidambaram, specifically focusing on certain aspects of the PMLA judgment.

Previously, the court had granted permission for an open court hearing in the review petition. On August 22, 2022, the court had accepted the review petition challenging its earlier judgment and agreed to conduct a hearing on the matter.

On July 27, 2022, a bench led by Justice AM Khanwilkar in the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of several provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The bench, which included Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar, however, specified that the challenge to the passage of amendments to the Act in 2019 as a money bill would be examined by a larger bench.

More than 200 petitions were filed challenging various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The arguments presented before the court contended that the powers granted to the Enforcement Directorate, including the authority to make arrests, compel confessions, and seize property, were unrestrained and required scrutiny.

CASE: KARTI P. CHIDAMBARAM vs. THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT.