Back
Supreme Court Reserves Verdict on Whether PMLA Needs
The on Tuesday reserved its judgment on a crucial question: whether the constituted under (PMLA) must include a , and whether it can function as a . A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana heard a batch of petitions challenging the composition and functioning of the authority, which confirms provisional attachment orders passed by the .
The central issue revolves around the constitutional validity of the and whether proceedings under Section 8(1) are vitiated due to non-compliance with requirements of furnishing "." The petitions also questioned whether the —tasked with determining if a provisionally attached property constitutes ""—can validly exercise its powers when its bench lacks a member with legal expertise.
The Core Question: or Not?
During the hearing, Justice Bagchi posed a sharp query to the petitioners: “Orders having would have, even in a tribunal, the facet of judicial identity. Is your argument that the facet of judicial identity is completely rendered nugatory, thereby going against the concept of ?”
The petitioners, represented by senior advocates , , , and , argued that the must consist of a Chairperson and two other members, with at least one member having experience in the field of law, as per . They contended that the authority has been functioning with a single administrative member for years, and only recently was a law member appointed—one who previously served in the ED.
Senior Advocate submitted that the authority was (without proper jurisdiction) when it operated without a . He argued that attachment of property under Section 5 is a provisional measure, but its confirmation under Section 8 effectively determines whether the property is involved in money laundering—a that demands judicial oversight.
Petitioners Raise Alarm Over Case Volume
A startling statistic emerged during arguments: out of 8,851 cases initiated by the ED in a specific period, only 60 went to trial. Senior Advocate highlighted this disparity, stating, “ED itself on its website says 8851 cases are the ones they initiated, out of which only 60 went to trial. So those 8851—all these provisions apply… … you freeze something for 20-30 years and then eventually at the end of it…”
Justice Bagchi then questioned the practicality of the statutory 180-day timeline for the to confirm or reject provisional attachments. He asked the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) : “We are looking at a law (PMLA) which requires application of mind by one Tribunal in 3000 cases in 6 months… can you imagine the pressure which is being put on a Tribunal comprising of whatever 3, 2, or 1 member… to look into 3000 or 5000 cases within 6 months? Will there be a real application of mind? Or just signing on?”
The petitioners echoed this concern, noting that the authority’s workload renders meaningful adjudication impossible. “If Your Lordships see the proceedings, lawyers of standing do not want to appear anymore. It has effectively become one-sided. There is no real communication. There is nothing,” the petitioners’ counsel submitted.
ED Defends Statutory Scheme
Responding for the , ASG argued that a is the norm for the . He relied on , which allows the Chairperson to transfer a case to a two-member bench depending on its nature, but does not mandate a in every bench. He contended that the issue of quorum was not raised in the earlier Supreme Court judgment in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary v. (2022), which upheld the PMLA’s provisions.
Senior Advocate , appearing for the ED, clarified that provisional attachment under only prohibits transfer, conversion, or movement of property—effectively maintaining . “This is all that is confirmed by the AA pending trial to preserve the . At this stage, there is nothing in terms of criminality,” he submitted. The CJI responded, “That’s why we used the word .”
Hossain also informed the court that approximately 400 attachments occur annually, countering the petitioners’ figure of 3,501 attachments. However, the CJI expressed skepticism: “Even if you have 100 matters, why should you have only one officer to adjudicate?”
Court’s Skepticism and Observations
The bench directed the ED to file a short affidavit within two days providing the exact number of attachment proceedings before the . The CJI noted that these matters involve third-party rights and require expeditious adjudication, adding that the volume of cases demands more than a single adjudicator.
Justice Bagchi observed that the Chairperson of the need not be from the field of law, and that the statute leaves it to the Chairperson’s discretion to decide the quorum for each case. But he also acknowledged the petitioners’ argument that the authority’s powers are wide and include determining whether property constitutes —a decision with serious .
The court also noted that the does not decide title to property; that power lies with the . However, once the authority confirms attachment, dispossession can occur before an appeal is heard by the , which does include a .
Broader Implications for PMLA Practice
The outcome of this case will have far-reaching consequences for the PMLA regime. If the Supreme Court holds that a is mandatory, it could invalidate thousands of attachment orders passed by single-member benches without legal expertise. Conversely, if the court upholds the current practice, it may reinforce the executive’s control over adjudicatory functions—a move critics argue undermines the principle of .
The petitioners also raised concerns about the lack of meaningful hearings, with lawyers of standing reportedly refusing to appear before the authority. This highlights a deeper crisis of confidence in the quasi-judicial process under the PMLA.
The case— Mukesh Kumar and Anr. v. and Ors. (SLP(C) No. 32234/2026 and connected matters)—now awaits the Supreme Court’s verdict. Legal professionals across the country will be watching closely, as the decision could reshape the enforcement landscape for money laundering cases in India.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s reserved judgment will address fundamental questions about the composition of statutory tribunals, the necessity of judicial members in quasi-judicial bodies, and the balance between efficient case disposal and due process. With thousands of properties already under attachment, the ruling will impact the rights of individuals and companies facing PMLA proceedings, as well as the operational framework of the Enforcement Directorate. Until then, the legal community remains on edge, awaiting clarity on whether the PMLA can continue to function without a —and whether its decisions can withstand constitutional scrutiny.
