Supreme Court has expressed its disapproval of the practice of accused individuals in money laundering cases filing petitions under Article 32 directly before the court. These petitions challenge the summons or seek bail under the guise of challenging the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Prashant Kumar Mishra, the court expressed its opinion that petitions filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, which challenge an Act and at the same time seek consequential reliefs, are viewed as a way to circumvent other available legal remedies

The court's observations came in response to cases involving two Chhattisgarh government officials, Akhtar Dhebar and Niranjan Das, who were implicated in a liquor/excise scam. They moved the Supreme Court for relief while challenging the validity of the PMLA.

Solicitor General representing the Enforcement Directorate (ED) objected to the maintainability of such pleas. During the hearing, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Dhebar, sought to withdraw the plea with the liberty to approach the High Court for bail and other relief. The Solicitor General pressed for some observations against such pleas to be recorded in the order, highlighting the trend of challenging the constitutionality of the legislation and seeking a no coercive action order as a form of anticipatory bail.

The Additional Solicitor General also emphasized the need to stop the practice of repetitive pleas in the Supreme Court, expressing concerns about a floodgate of litigation. The bench agreed and observed that such petitions were frivolous and criticized the senior counsels for not guiding their clients properly. They remarked that instead of challenging the summons in the High Court under Section 438, the accused individuals were challenging them directly in the Supreme Court.

The court disposed of the pleas, noting that the petitioners had previously approached the High Court, which dismissed their challenge to the action taken by the ED. The court expressed its concern over the disturbing practice of directly approaching the Supreme Court in a separate plea for relief.

These remarks by the Supreme Court highlight their disapproval of the trend of accused individuals in money laundering cases using Article 32 petitions to seek bail or challenge the PMLA provisions directly in the Supreme Court, bypassing other available legal remedies.

The court emphasized the importance of following the proper legal procedures and discouraging such practices.