The Supreme Court on Thursday said it will first adjudicate the issue of maintainability of the review petitions filed against its 2022 landmark judgment that upheld the wide-ranging powers of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), before considering the merits of the questions raised in those pleas.
A three-judge bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh made it clear that it would prioritise arguments on whether the review petitions were maintainable in law, acknowledging that a review has “its own limitations”.
“They are justified in raising first of all preliminary issues—whether the review is maintainable. All of us are well aware that review has its own limitations…. Sometimes we can have a different viewpoint but still, we cannot substitute,” Justice Kant remarked during the proceedings.

The matter has been posted for hearing on August 6.
ED Seeks to Limit Scope
The Enforcement Directorate, represented by the Union government, raised three preliminary objections, primarily questioning the maintainability of the review petitions. On the other side, the review petitioners have framed 13 issues they want the Court to consider in their challenge to the 2022 verdict.
Earlier on May 7, the Court had directed both sides to frame the issues that required adjudication in the context of the review.
Centre Cites August 2022 Order
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, argued that the scope of the review cannot exceed the two limited issues for which the Court had issued notice back in August 2022. These two issues were:
- Whether the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) should be mandatorily provided to the accused.
- The constitutional validity of Section 24 of the PMLA, which reverses the burden of proof and places it on the accused.
The 2022 Verdict Under Review
In July 2022, the Supreme Court upheld several controversial provisions of the PMLA, reinforcing the ED’s powers of arrest, search, seizure, and attachment of properties. The Court described money laundering as a global threat to financial systems and ruled that PMLA offences are not “ordinary” in nature.
The verdict held that:
- ED officials are not police officers, and thus procedural safeguards under the CrPC do not strictly apply.
- The ECIR is not the same as an FIR, and its copy need not be supplied to the accused.
- Section 45, which imposes twin conditions for bail, was upheld as reasonable and not arbitrary.
The judgment came on a batch of over 200 petitions challenging various provisions of the PMLA. Many of the petitioners, including opposition politicians and activists, have alleged that the law is being used as a tool for political vendetta.
What Lies Ahead
The Court clarified that only if the review petitions are found to be maintainable will it proceed to examine the substantive issues raised by the petitioners. “Eventually, the questions that might finally arise for consideration would also be determined by the court, if it holds that the review pleas are maintainable,” the bench noted.