Dealing with a batch of petitions by the accused in the purported Rs 2,000 crore Chhattisgarh liquor scam case, an approach similar to what started in the year 2018 was noticed by a vacation bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and P K Mishra, which on Monday had pointed out the fallacy in filing writ petitions challenging the validity of provisions of PMLA when these have been upheld by the SC and reiterated by a two-judge bench.
When lawyers representing the accused realised that their pleas challenging the validity of PMLA would not earn them the shield from arrest, they sought to withdraw the petitions. But the bench ensured that they would not come back with the same challenge later, possibly to piggyback on a few pending petitions in which a bench headed by Justice S K Kaul had issued notice and granted protection from arrest.
Challenges to provisions of PMLA started in 2018
When lawyers representing the accused realised that their pleas challenging the validity of PMLA would not earn them the shield from arrest, they sought to withdraw the petitions. But the bench ensured that they would not come back with the same challenge later, possibly to piggyback on a few pending petitions in which a bench headed by Justice S K Kaul had issued notice and granted protection from arrest.
Justice Trivedi said the court would have come down heavily on the petitioners for indulging in such litigation had they not withdrawn their petitions. She said that it was the duty of senior advocates to guide the briefing counsel about the fallacy in the approach-to mount fresh challenges to provisions of a legislation which have been upheld by the SC.
On July 27 last year, a three-judge bench led by Justice A M Khanwilkar had put to rest the practice of getting “no coercive step” orders for PMLA case accused after deciding a batch of nearly 300 petitions, some of which were transferred from various high courts, in the judgment titled “Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary vs Union of India“, in which it was also ruled that Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) is not akin to FIR to disentitle accused from a copy of it.
Challenges to provisions of PMLA for seeking “no coercive step” orders, or anticipatory bail relief, started in 2018. After two division benches of the Delhi HC took contrasting views, the SC transferred the case to itself. A deluge of petitions challenging provisions of PMLA flooded the SC. The mechanical passing of “no coercive step” orders saw some of the accused absconding, including Sterling biotech scam case accused Sandesaras fleeing the country, and derailing the probes. The PMLA scheme, specifically the constitutional validity of sections 50 and 63, was challenged. The Union government through SG Tushar Mehta and advocate Kanu Agrawal presented arguments and convinced the court about the validity of the provisions. But, the practice of seeking “no coercive steps” through challenge to provisions of PMLA returned this year.
