High Court cannot entertain challenges to settled constitutional provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act as upheld by the Supreme Court, ensuring judicial discipline and adherence to precedents.

CAV ORDER

Re: I.A. No. 01 of 2025

The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) for amending the prayer in the main writ application along with amendment in synopsis.

02. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that prior to approaching this Court, the petitioner had invoked the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing writ W.P. (Crl.) 411 of 2025, wherein the petitioner, inter alia, sought a declaration that Section 50 and Section 63 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 are ultra vires to the Constitution of India and further for quashing of statements recorded and summons issued by the respondent/ED under the said impugned provisions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the submissions of the petitioner, was pleased to pass an order dated 17.10.2025, whereby the said writ petition was disposed of, with liberty to raise all contentions before the appropriate forum, i.e., before this High Court. In pursuance to the liberty given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide Order dated 17.10.2025, the petitioner filed the present writ petition before this Court, seeking the relief as mentioned in Paragraph- 1. However, due to inadvertence and paucity of time at the stage of initial filing, the original writ Petition does not contain an express, independent relief clause seeking declaration of Section 50 and 63 of PMLA as ultra vires to the Constitution of India. Mr. Rohatgi further submitted that a holistic reading of the synopsis, questions of law and detailed grounds in the petition clearly demonstrate that the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity and vires of Sections 50 and 63 of PMLA, 2002. Mr. Rohatgi further submitted that due to inadvertence and typographical error, the synopsis erroneously describes the present matter as a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. However, the cause title and the entirety of the petition consistently reflect it as a petition instituted under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Accordingly, the present petition ought to be read and construed as one instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and not under Article 32 as incorrectly mentioned in the synopsis. Mr. Rohatgi further submitted that the relevant pleadings in the petition demonstrating the challenge to vires of Section 50 and 63 PMLA, the prayer for quashing of statements recorded under Section 17 and 50 PMLA and the challenge to the summons issued under Section 50 PMLA are already on record. In these circumstances, no prejudice of any nature will be caused to the respondents by allowing the amendments sought through this interlocutory application. The proposed amendments do not introduce any new ground or contention that the respondents have not had the opportunity to meet. The proposed amendment is formal, clarificatory and explanatory and is intended to explicitly articulate a relief already implicit and foundational in the petition. The same does not introduce any new cause of action or factual foundation. Mr. Rohatgi referred to the amendments sought in the case to be added after Para 1(III) in the main writ application, which read as under:

“IV. "Issue a writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, thereby declaring Section 50 and Section 63 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 as ultra vires to the Constitution of India."

V. "Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction. thereby quashing all