PMLA validity: After 2 days of hearing, Supreme Court dissolves bench as Centre seeks time, Justice SK Kaul to retire soon

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday decided that another bench of the Court would have to hear the case concerning the validity of provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), due to a paucity of time. .A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi expressed their inability to draft a judgment on time since the Central government had sought more time to frame and begin its arguments, and since Justice Kaul is slated to retire on December 25.."Learned Solicitor General seeks deferment, which would leave no time for this bench to pen down an order. Amendment application is allowed. 4 weeks time is granted to file a counter-affidavit, rejoinder if any 4 weeks thereafter. The Chief Justice of India would have to reconstitute the bench in view of one of us demitting office. Necessary orders to be obtained from the Chief Justice of India," the bench ordered..The move comes after two consecutive days of hearing petitioners who have challenged the validity of PMLA provisions."What can I do? I am doing this with a little heavy heart," Justice Kaul had remarked before dictating the order..The petitioners before the Court have sought a reconsideration of the Court's decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, in which the validity of the PMLA was upheld.The Court had earlier refused a request to defer the hearing in these petitions in view of the ongoing Financial Action Task Force (FATF) review of the country's anti-money laundering and terror financing laws.In yesterday's hearing, the Court orally opined that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) cannot invoke the PMLA for tax evasion cases since offences under the Income Tax Act are not scheduled offences under the PMLA..Notably, earlier this week, the Central government expressed that it needs more time to prepare for the case in view of amendments made by the petitioners in their writ petition. These amendments had expanded the scope of the challenge to attack the entire PMLA, the government submitted. This concern was expressed in today's hearing as well, with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta requesting that he be allowed to start his arguments in December."We cannot drag this. (But on) 5th the SG is before a Constitution Bench. We will require some deliberation," the Court replied. .Meanwhile, Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared for a petitioner, stated that the Central government was resorting to using a 'distressing' technique to avoid the hearing. The Central government had already filed a counter to some of the petitions in the batch, he argued.Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for another petitioner, stated that if the matter were to be referred to a larger bench or a five-judge bench, a detailed judgment would not be needed from the three-judge bench. The Court, however, disagreed."We cannot look at it cursorily. It requires deliberation. My view is that we have to express some views while referring it to a larger bench. My impression is that there is a judgment on this. One has to give some reasons for referral. Not merely because we may not agree with previous view. There has to be views by two benches for reference," Justice Trivedi pointed out."Please, do not let it (the hearings held so far) go to waste," Sibal urged. "No, Mr Sibal. The use of that word is objectionable. You should not have used that word. You could have said it differently. We need some time to pen it down," Justice Khanna said in response. .The bench also noted that it may prejudice the petitioners if they were to withdraw their application to amend their pleadings.The Court proceeded to allow the petitioners' amendment application. However, since the Central government needed more time to prepare a reply to the amended plea and since Justice Kaul is set to retire soon, the Court called for the matter to be heard by another bench.