Following earlier hearings on the composition and rules of anti-money laundering bodies, the Supreme Court has now reserved its final judgment on whether the Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) can function as a single-member bench and if a judicial member is mandatory.
What Happened in Court?
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana heard a batch of petitions challenging the functioning and structure of the PMLA Adjudicating Authority. The core issue revolves around Section 6 of the PMLA, which sets up the authority responsible for confirming property attachment orders passed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
During the proceedings, the bench raised serious questions about the immense workload placed on the tribunal. Justice Bagchi pointed out the extreme pressure of handling thousands of cases within a strict 180-day deadline. The court questioned whether a single member could genuinely apply their mind to thousands of files or merely rubber-stamp orders.
Arguments by Petitioners and the Union
Senior advocates representing the petitioners argued that the Adjudicating Authority must consist of a multi-member body including legal experts. They submitted that freezing properties for decades without proper judicial oversight causes severe civil consequences long before any trial begins. They contended that a single member—or a body lacking a judicial member—renders the proceedings legally flawed.
On the other side, Additional Solicitor General Anil Kaushik, representing the Union, defended the current framework. He argued that a single member is the statutory norm, and multi-member benches are formed only at the Chairperson’s discretion under specific circumstances. The respondents maintained that provisional attachment merely acts as a legal injunction to preserve proceeds of crime and maintain status quo pending trial.
What The Law Says
Under Section 6 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, the Central Government establishes an Adjudicating Authority to exercise jurisdiction, powers, and authority conferred by the Act. This authority confirms provisional attachment orders issued by investigative agencies under Section 5.
The statute allows the Chairperson to distribute work and constitute benches comprising one or more members. However, the legal debate centers on whether this structure adequately safeguards citizen rights, given that property attachments severely restrict a person’s ability to transfer or deal with their assets before any criminal guilt is proven in a Special Court.
What Happens Next
The Supreme Court has directed the authorities to submit a short affidavit clarifying case statistics and operational details within two days. With arguments concluded, the bench has reserved its judgment. The upcoming verdict will clarify the legal standards for tribunal composition and member qualifications under India’s strict money laundering laws.
Story reported by Supreme Court – High Court – Legal Breaking News | Live Law India. This article is BareLaw’s independent explanation and analysis.
📲 Get every BareLaw story on Telegram — simple legal news, 5 times a day, free: t.me/barelaw
