The Supreme Court has reserved its ruling on whether the Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act can operate as a single-member bench and confirm property confiscations in the absence of a judicial member, raising concerns over whether overwhelming caseloads undermine genuine judicial assessment.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana also instructed the Enforcement Directorate on Tuesday to provide official figures showing how many of its registered cases actually progress to trial compared to those involving provisional property attachments.
Workload and Independent Scrutiny
During the hearing, the court raised sharp questions about whether a tribunal functioning with limited strength can realistically evaluate matters under tight statutory timeframes. Addressing Additional Solicitor General Anil Kaushik, who represented the anti-money laundering agency, Justice Bagchi questioned how a solitary authority could meaningfully assess between 3,000 and 5,000 cases within a six-month window.
Observing that provisional attachments must be decided within 180 days, Justice Bagchi asked whether extreme caseload pressure leaves room for authentic independent consideration, or whether it reduces the adjudicatory process to routinely signing orders on dotted lines.
Disparity Between Attachments and Trials
The bench’s inquiries arose as legal representatives for the petitioners highlighted a wide gap between property impoundments and actual prosecutions. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan cited the agency’s internal statistics, pointing out that only 60 out of 8,851 cases initiated by the Enforcement Directorate during a specific timeframe had advanced to trial.
He submitted that because provisional attachment measures applied across all 8,851 cases, affected parties face long-lasting civil consequences spanning decades without the underlying allegations ever being tested in court.
Statutory Composition and Mandate
Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhri, also arguing for the petitioners, contended that deciding on provisional attachments within the 180-day deadline is a quasi-judicial responsibility rather than a mere administrative exercise. He stated that the governing legislation envisions a three-member Adjudicating Authority comprising a chairperson and two other members, stressing that a judicial member is an indispensable requirement.
Chaudhri pointed to the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment in the Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary case, which affirmed the agency’s statutory powers, noting that the ruling had recognized the Adjudicating Authority as a three-member body led by a district judge. He added that the body had operated with just a single member for a prolonged duration before a member with a legal background was recently appointed, though the statute also allows the authority to sit in benches of one or two members.
