INSUBCONTINENT EXCLUSIVE:
NEW DELHI: After almost two days of hearing on a batch of petitions challenging the validity of some provisions of the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act and for review of a 2022 verdict which upheld the law, the Supreme Court on Thursday ordered that the case would have to be
heard afresh by a new bench as the Centre pressed for adjournment and the presiding judge is retiring next month.A bench of Justices Sanjay
Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi heard the case for the entire day on Wednesday and till 3pm on Thursday during which
petitioners concluded their submission but the Centre, which has been from the beginning seeking deferment of hearing because of petitioners
amending their petition at the last moment, again argued that it be allowed to make its submissions on some other day
their challenge to the 2022 verdict beyond the issues they had initially raised.With December 15 being the last working day for Justice Kaul
and also a constitution bench scheduled to assemble in the interregnum, the bench said it would not be possible for them to conclude the
hearing and pass judgment (before December 15) in case of adjournment.Justice Kaul accepted the SG's request even as he made his
No less disappointed were senior advocates Kapil Sibal and A M Singhvi
pressing on amended petitions
Everything is there in the petition filed earlier
We have also filed our written submission within the timeframe fixed by the court but the government has not filed a written submission till
Centre's pleas for deferring the hearing, had even started hearing the petitioners, strengthening the prospect of the bench deciding whether
to send the 2022 verdict for a review by a five-judge bench before Justice Kaul's retirement
Justice Kaul said as went ahead with dictating the order for adjournment and placing the case before the CJI for constituting a new bench
The court also admitted the amended petitions and asked the Centre and ED to file their response and posted the hearing after two
months.Mehta argued that there are many new points raised in the amended petition and reasonable time be given to him respond and assist the
In view of the deferment now taking place and looking to the nature of the challenge, which is constitutional in its basis, and whether a
case has been made out for referring some aspects to a larger bench, the amendment application is allowed..
Mehta apologised for the inconvenience but emphasised that only selective reading of the 2022 PMLA judgment was done by the petitioners and
On this side, we see and hear many things, but we don't say many things
another attempt to get adjournment but it was opposed by Singhvi, who initiated the argument
After a deliberation among judges, the bench decided to proceed in the case with Singhvi and Sibal assuring that no new points would be
But when the Centre's turn came, the SG again pressed for adjournment.State govt vs Governors: Supreme Court raises questions over delay in
