PMLA Review Hearing : Live Updates From Supreme Court

ASG: they did not object to Balaji judgment where it was noted that challenge is to 2 issues (para 117)

J Singh: Will 2-judge Balaji judgment bind us?

ASG: I am on their conduct, factual position admitted by them. I am not on law

J Bhuyan: where could they object? judgment was delivered

ASG: they could file clarification application, review, could have said expunge that para, but they sought expunction of other paragraphs.

J Kant: Is it your argument that the 2 issues which were not identified in the 2022 order, but in your affidavit, you formulated the issues, which have been taken notice in Balaji, on those 2 issues also review can't be heard?

ASG: with respect to these 2 issues, their case does not fall within parameters of review. they must demonstrate error apparent on face of record. firstly see their conduct.

ASG: Can this be a ground for review?! Roger Mathews case is a precedent, and it adopted the same procedure (as VMC). They say VMC ought to have awaited Money Bill decision in Roger Mathews...on the same logic, review should await Money Bill decision. There's no error apparent on record warranting review.

ASG: On legislative competence, Court held in our favor...they took one chance, having failed, they are now seeking review

ASG refers to VMC judgment and averments in the review petitions

ASG: They're wrong on conduct also. They took a chance and failed. Constitutional validity is always in my favor

ASG cites Constitution Bench decision in Roger Mathews case

J Kant: Infact some of the issues were decided

ASG: [what's happening is] unheard of.

Hearing resumes

Sibal: This matter will not finish today, let this be part-heard. We need a set of dates where there's no adjournment

J Bhuyan: 2nd session has just started, let's continue.

Bench to continue hearing after lunch break.

ASG: 7-judge bench is seized of Money Bill issue. That's why VMC bench did not go into it. Yet they have challenged. How's review required when Court did not go into the issue?

ASG: First issue in petition is regarding Money Bill. In VMC, court did not go into question of money bill

J Kant: You are primarily on maintainability. Whether 1 question or 5 questions, that's not of serious consequence

ASG: Error apparent on face of record is the parameter. If I can show...there's a reason why bench limited notice to 2 issues.

ASG cites judgments, including in Senthil Balaji's case

ASG: The judgment recorded that only 2 issues were there. They sought expungement of remarks made in the judgment, but not of the para where Court noted about 2 issues

J Kant deprecates practice of people waiting for judges to retire and then filing applications for relief

J Kant: Who is the counsel who filed this (appl for expungement of remarks in Balaji's case)? This is as bad as forum shopping, bench hunting. Filed after 2 years! We will dismiss on this ground only.