Back
Supreme Court Replaces Justices Bhuyan, Singh on PMLA Review Bench After Parties' Consent
The today reconstituted the bench hearing review petitions against the landmark judgment on the , replacing Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana. The change was effected by consent of the parties, after Chief Justice Surya Kant informed the court that retaining the earlier composition would necessitate breaking up three existing benches. The order was dictated in open court, with and offering no objection.
The reconstitution comes at a critical juncture, as the review petitions — eight in number — challenge the of several PMLA provisions upheld by a three-judge bench on . The ruling had sustained the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) powers of arrest, attachment, search and seizure under Sections 5, 8(4), 15, 17, and 19 of the Act; the under Section 24; and the under Section 45, including the amendment made in despite the earlier striking down in . The decision was widely debated for its implications on and the .
Background: The 2022 Judgment and the Review
When the review petitions were first taken up in , a bench led by then Chief Justice NV Ramana issued notice and made two significant . The court indicated that at least two conclusions from the 2022 judgment “required relook”: first, the holding that a copy of the need not be supplied to the accused, and second, the upholding of the reversal of the via Section 24. These remarks set the stage for a potentially narrow review, focused on procedural and substantive fairness.
Subsequently, the court allowed an . However, the matter experienced repeated adjournments. On , the Solicitor General sought time to prepare arguments. The case was then listed on but re-listed for . On the latter date, it could not be taken up as Chief Justice Surya Kant (then a puisne judge) was on leave. In , the filed an affidavit asserting that the review hearing must be confined to the two issues orally flagged in 2022. Petitioners countered that the 2022 order did not record such a limitation, and argued: “The order must be taken for what it is...It can't be that the Government of India's affidavit (stating the two issues) will override the Court's order.” The petitioners also drew attention to a judgment by Justice Abhay S Oka regarding the right of an accused to obtain a list of documents in PMLA cases.
The Reconstitution: Pragmatic or Strategic?
Today’s proceedings saw a pragmatic turn. Chief Justice Surya Kant candidly informed counsel that if the earlier bench (comprising himself, Justice Bhuyan, and Justice Singh) continued, it would disrupt the functioning of three other benches. “If the earlier bench continues to hear the matter, 3 benches will have to be broken,” the Chief Justice said, as reported. He sought the parties’ take on reconstitution. Both (for the review petitioners) and (for the ED) gave their no-objection. The Solicitor General noted that “ had taken place before the earlier bench,” a factor that likely smoothed the transition.
The new bench now includes Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana alongside Chief Justice Surya Kant. The replacement of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan is particularly noteworthy. Justice Bhuyan had, in recent months, been openly critical of the ED in other matters, including comments that the agency cannot act like a “crook” and questioning its low conviction rates. His removal from the review bench may recalibrate the court’s approach, though judicial independence ensures no predetermined outcome.
Legal Issues at Stake
The review petitions raise fundamental questions about the of the PMLA’s coercive framework. The two issues flagged in 2022 remain central:
-
Non-supply of ECIR: The judgment had held that the ECIR, unlike an FIR, need not be furnished to the accused at the time of arrest. Critics argue this denies a fair trial and violates Article 21. The Supreme Court’s earlier suggested discomfort with this position.
-
: Section 24 of the PMLA shifts the burden onto the accused to prove that proceeds of crime are not involved. The 2022 bench found a “” with the objects of the Act, but the review petitioners contend that reversing the is a disproportionate encroachment on , especially in economic offences where the state has vast investigative resources.
The court had earlier indicated that it would first hear the parties on the maintainability of the review petitions. This procedural prelude could itself shape the scope of the review — whether it stays confined to the two flagged issues or extends to other provisions like the twin bail conditions, which have been subject to judicial oscillation.
Implications for Legal Practice
For criminal law practitioners, the outcome of this review will have far-reaching consequences. The PMLA is the primary weapon against money laundering, and its application has expanded to cover a wide range of . If the review succeeds in limiting the ED’s powers, it could embolden challenges to in pending cases. Conversely, if the judgment is reaffirmed, it will cement the government’s approach to economic crime regulation.
The reconstitution also signals the court’s intention to move the matter forward without further delay. Legal professionals should monitor the next date of hearing, likely to be fixed soon, for any direction on maintainability. The presence of Justice Joymalya Bagchi — a judge with expertise in criminal law — and Justice V Mohana may influence the tenor of oral arguments.
Conclusion
Today’s development is a procedural pivot but carries substantive weight. By reconstituting the bench with the parties’ consent, the Supreme Court has ensured that the review petitions will not be stalled due to logistical constraints. The replacement of Justice Bhuyan removes any perception of bias, given his past remarks, while the inclusion of two fresh judges injects new perspectives. For now, the legal community awaits the court’s ruling on maintainability and, eventually, a definitive pronouncement on the limits of the PMLA’s enforcement machinery. The case, titled and connected matters, remains one of the most closely watched proceedings in Indian criminal law.
