'Just Because I Am Rich': SC Rejects Plea Challenging PMLA Provision

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday orally observed that wealth alone does not entitle individuals to question the validity of a law, while declining to entertain a plea of a lawyer, facing money laundering charges in connection with the AgustaWestland VVIP helicopter deal, challenging the validity of a provision of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The matter came up before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. "This is a unique trend now. When the trial is going on, the rich and affluent move this court challenging the vires of legislation. If you are an accused, face the trial like any other ordinary citizen," the CJI said.

While declining to entertain the plea filed by lawyer Gautam Khaitan, the bench said, "Just because I am rich, I will challenge the validity of the law... this practice must stop."

Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Khaitan, submitted that the constitutional validity of Section 44 was in question and required examination by the court. The top court said it does not approve of affluent accused approaching it to challenge the vires of statutory provisions while criminal trials are ongoing.

The top court observed that the validity of the provisions of the PMLA is already under consideration in review petitions, which arose out of its judgment in the Vijay Madanlal case. "It appears to us that the legality of Section 44 shall be examined in the course of those proceedings. We see no reason to entertain a separate writ petition," the CJI said.

The bench declined to entertain the plea, while keeping the question of law open. It said it can grant liberty to the counsel to intervene in the ongoing review pleas. Khaitan has challenged Section 44 of the PMLA.

The provision mandates that if a court other than a designated PMLA special court takes cognisance of a "scheduled offence”, the case must be transferred to the special court dealing with the money laundering offence upon application by the authorised authority. The objective of the provision is to prevent jurisdictional conflicts, streamline trials and ensure consistency by enabling a single court to adjudicate both the predicate offence and the money laundering charge.

Also Read

1. SC Grants Bail To Amtek Group Ex-Chairperson In Money Laundering Case
2. SC Rejects PIL Seeking Enforcement Of Lyngdoh Committee Norms On Student Polls