The Supreme Court has raised questions over the functioning and composition of the Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), particularly whether a single member without judicial experience can confirm provisional property attachment orders passed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana heard a batch of petitions concerning the interpretation of Sections 6 and 8 of the PMLA. The Court reserved its judgment after hearing arguments on whether the Adjudicating Authority must include a judicial member while dealing with attachment proceedings.
Editorial Insight
Key Highlights
Important points readers should notice.
Issue/Event: Supreme Court examines the composition and functioning of the PMLA Adjudicating Authority.
Location: New Delhi
Authority/Organisation: Supreme Court of India / Enforcement Directorate
Action Taken: Court heard arguments on single-member benches and the need for judicial membership; verdict reserved.
Impact: The eventual ruling could clarify the manner in which PMLA property attachment proceedings are adjudicated.
During the hearing, the bench questioned whether there could be proper application of mind when a single member of the Authority is required to deal with a large number of cases within the statutory timeframe. The Court also raised concerns about the workload involved in deciding thousands of matters within 180 days.
The issue is significant because the Adjudicating Authority plays a role in confirming provisional attachment orders issued by the ED under the PMLA. The petitions before the Court challenge aspects of the Authority's composition and the manner in which attachment proceedings are adjudicated.
The Supreme Court has not yet delivered its final decision on the issue. Its verdict will determine how the relevant provisions concerning the composition and functioning of the PMLA Adjudicating Authority are to be interpreted.
Editorial Analysis
Why This Matters
The case concerns the legal process through which property attachment orders under the PMLA are reviewed and confirmed. A ruling on the composition of the Adjudicating Authority could have implications for pending and future attachment proceedings under the anti-money laundering law.
