The Supreme Court lists the pleadings challenging Vijay Madanlal Choudhary’s decision of March 6

The Supreme Court is about to hear on March 6th review petitions filed against those Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Judgment, which has confirmed various provisions on the Law on the prevention of money laundering (PMLA).

It can be remembered that a bank of Justice Surya Kant, CT Ravikumar (now retired) and Ujjal Bhuyan had to do with the problem. However, after the retirement of the Ravikumar justice, a need for the bank’s reconstitution appeared.

The pleasures were first listed on August 7, 2024, but the hearing continued to postpone since then. Now, the problem is presented as being listed in front of a two -judge bank of Justices Kant and N Kotiswar Singh on March 6.

Background

The decision of VMC was pronounced on July 27, 2022 by a bank comprising Justices Am Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar. Videu this decision, certain provisions regarding the prevention of money laundering from 2002 (PMLA) have been confirmed. They included –

(i) sections 5, 8 (4), 15, 17 and 19 of PMLA, regarding the power of the Directorate for the Application of the Directorate of Arrest, Attachment, Search and Confiscation;

(ii) Section 24 of PMLA, regarding the reverse task of the evidence (in this regard, the court stated that the provision had “Reasonable nexus” with the objects of the act);

(iii) section 45 of PMLA, which provides “Twin conditions” For bail (in this regard, it was said that the Parliament was competent to modify the provision in 2018, even after the decision of the Supreme Court in Nikesh Tarachand Shah, which eliminated the conditions).

Subsequent to this decision, instant review petitions (8 in number) were submitted. With the retirement of justice Khanwilkar, then CJI NV Ramana presided over the bank to consider the petitions.

While emitting notice On August 25, 2022, the bank led by CJI Ramana observed orally that at least two conclusions of the necessary decision resumed – first of all, that the copy of the information report report (ECIR; the equivalent in cases of money laundering) should not be given to the accused and, secondly, to maintain the reversal.

After that, the court allowed a request to hear the open court of review petitions. Since issuing the notification, the petitions have been listed for the first time on August 7. At this time the problem was to be put off At the request of the Attorney General Tushar Mehta, who sought some time to prepare and argue. Subsequently in accordance with a MentionThe problem was listed on September 18, but it was re-journeyed for October 16th. At the mentioned date, it could not be taken over, because the Kant justice was on leave.

Case title: Karti P Chidambaram v. Directorate for application | RP (CRL) 219/2022 (and connected cases)