Back
Supreme Court Forms New Bench Led by CJI Surya Kant to Hear Review Pleas
The has constituted a fresh three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant to hear a batch of challenging its landmark judgment in . The new bench will also include Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana. The decision to reconstitute the bench was announced on Thursday after all parties consented to the arrangement, citing the urgency of the matter. The court stated that a hearing date will be fixed separately, and that it will first address the of whether the are maintainable before delving into the raised.
Background: The 2022 Verdict
The arise from the Supreme Court’s sweeping decision that upheld the of numerous provisions of the (). Delivered by a bench comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, and C T Ravikumar, the judgment was rendered on a cluster of 241 petitions challenging the anti-money laundering framework. The court affirmed extensive powers vested in the (), including the authority to arrest, attach property, conduct search and seizure, and impose stringent under . It also upheld , which permits officers to record statements, and ruled that supplying an to an accused is not mandatory, as the ECIR is an distinct from an under .
Perhaps most controversially, the 2022 verdict overruled the decision in , in which a division bench had struck down the under (1) as unconstitutional. The 2022 court held that the is a “” and that its provisions, including the under , were reasonable and not arbitrary. The judgment has since drawn sharp criticism from legal academics, civil society, and political opponents, who allege that the law has been weaponised to target dissent.
Grounds Raised in
The review petitioners have raised multiple questions regarding the correctness of the 2022 ruling. Their primary challenges focus on the , arguing that effectively shifts the onto the accused in a manner violative of . They also contest the court’s refusal to treat the ECIR on par with an , contending that the denial of a copy undermines the . Additionally, the stringent bail conditions under have been challenged as overly harsh and disproportionate.
The , represented by , has opposed the of the . The agency contends that the petitioners have not demonstrated an “” and that the reviews amount to an appeal in disguise. Further, the relies on the Supreme Court’s order to argue that the should be confined to two specific issues: the entitlement to a copy of the ECIR and the of the under . The court has previously indicated that it will first decide on before framing the final questions for consideration.
Reason for New Bench Composition
The reconstitution became necessary because the earlier bench, comprising CJI Surya Kant along with Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and N K Singh, could not continue to hear the matter due to changes in the judges’ sitting arrangements. As the Chief Justice explained in open court on Thursday, “If we list it before the original Bench, then three Benches will have to be broken.” He added that the matter was listed solely to obtain the for the new allocation. , appearing for petitioner Karti Chidambaram, and Solicitor General Mehta both consented promptly. The court then ordered, “Owing to the element of urgency, let this matter be heard by a three-judge Bench of this composition, that is, CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Mohana.”
Legal Significance of the Review Proceedings
The carry profound implications for the interpretation and enforcement of the . A review under is an , strictly limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record. The Supreme Court has consistently held that a review cannot be a rehearing of the original case. Therefore, the threshold for the petitioners is high. The ’s preliminary objections specifically question whether any such patent error exists in the 2022 judgment.
Nevertheless, the sheer number of filed and the gravity of the issues—ranging from personal liberty to the scope of investigative powers—underscore the significance of this hearing. If the court decides that the review is maintainable on broader grounds, it could revisit core tenets of the framework. Conversely, a narrow reading would limit any potential correction to the ECIR and reverse burden points. Legal experts anticipate that the bench may also examine whether the two-issue limitation imposed by the August 2022 order is on the review stage.
Impact on Legal Practice and the Justice System
The outcome of these review proceedings will directly affect the practice of criminal law in economic offences. The has become a centrepiece of the government’s anti-corruption and anti-money laundering drive, with the pursuing hundreds of cases. The stringent bail provisions and have made it extremely difficult for accused persons—including prominent political figures—to obtain pre-arrest bail or regular bail. A decision that chips away at these provisions could tilt the balance back toward .
On the other hand, if the review fails, the 2022 judgment will remain the authoritative interpretation of the , further entrenching the ’s expansive powers. The legal community is closely watching whether the Supreme Court will confine itself to a narrow review or whether it will use this opportunity to clarify or correct perceived overreach. The case also raises broader questions about the limits of and the proper scope of anti-money laundering legislation in a constitutional democracy.
What Lies Ahead
The Supreme Court’s decision to constitute a new bench and hear the issue expeditiously signals that it recognises the urgency and of these petitions. A date for the hearing is expected to be announced shortly. Legal professionals and commentators alike will be parsing every word of the bench’s observations for clues about the court’s approach to review jurisdiction and the ’s constitutional boundaries.
This is a developing story, and the new bench’s rulings will have far-reaching consequences for criminal justice, financial regulation, and the balance between state power and individual rights under Indian law.
