New Delhi: The Supreme Court, which has decided to examine whether its 2022 judgement upholding the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) powers to arrest and attach property involved in money laundering under PMLA required any reconsideration, said on Friday it will deal only with the “legal issues” and not go into individual matters.
The three-judge special bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said this while hearing an interlocutory application filed by a man who has been summoned by the ED in a money laundering case related to alleged extortion of illegal levy on coal transportation and production of steel and iron pellets etc.
“When the matter was taken up (on October 18), we had said we will go into the legal issues only and not individual issues,” Justice Kaul said.
The bench, also comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi, said “We are dealing with larger issue which is apparent from the order passed on October 18. It is not possible for the special bench to deal with all interlocutory matters arising from these proceedings.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, objected to the matter having been mentioned for urgent listing on October 16 without informing the ED’s counsel about it.
He said one of the accused in the case had filed a separate petition in the apex court seeking quashing of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and that plea came up for hearing before another bench. Mehta said that plea was withdrawn.
Mehta said the prayer in the petition which is now before the special bench is identical.
“This ought not to be mentioned like this. This mentioning was done behind our back,” Mehta said.
The counsel appearing for the petitioner said the applicant was summoned by the ED but it was not clear whether he was called as a witness or an accused. He said the applicant has sought protection from coercive action.
Mehta said the probe agency has also filed an affidavit in the court.
“It is pertinent to mention that no intimation whatsoever was given to the advocate/advocate-on-record of the Directorate of Enforcement in the instant case either prior to the mentioning or thereafter,” the affidavit said.
It said the ED came to know about the listing of the application only on Thursday when supplementary cause list was uploaded on the court’s website.
“This prima facie appears to be a case of tampering with the judicial record by inserting the AoR’s (advocate-on-record) name to suggest that he was informed or that he was present….(if so) then it amounts to forgery and requires to be inquired into and viewed seriously,” the affidavit said, adding that ED’s AoR had neither appeared in the main proceedings nor was he present on October 16.
It alleged mentioning the matter before a different bench, when another bench had already dealt with the same ECIR and refused to interfere in any manner, “ex-facie amounts to an abuse of process of law and smacks of sharp practices of forum shopping on the part of the petitioner “.
Giving details of the probe, the affidavit said ED’s investigation has unearthed the modus operandi adopted by the “coal syndicate” to generate proceeds of crime worth Rs 540 crore.
“The investigation carried out under PMLA by way of searches under section 17 of PMLA and recording of statements under section 50 of PMLA revealed the role of several persons including senior bureaucrats, state functionaries and politically exposed persons close to the present political dispensation in the state of Chhattisgarh,” it claimed.
The bench asked for the matter to be placed before Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud for appropriate direction.
The special bench had said on Wednesday it will consider on November 22 whether the July 27 last year verdict required reconsideration.
In its last year’s verdict, the top court had upheld the ED’s powers of arrest, attachment of property involved in money laundering, search and seizure under the PMLA.
In August last year, the top court had agreed to hear a plea seeking a review of its July 2022 verdict and observed that two aspects– not providing an ECIR and reversal of the presumption of innocence — “prima facie” required reconsideration.

Press Trust of India