2023 (5) TMI 1375 - SC - Money Laundering

Unconditional withdrawal of the writ petition - grant of any liberty to the petitioner objected - HELD THAT - The Court is constrained to observe that despite the Three-Judge Bench decision in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others vs. Union of India and Others 2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT , upholding the vires of various provisions including Sections 50 and 63 of PMLA, a new trend is developed in this Court to file writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India again challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 50, 63 and other provisions of the PMLA, also seeking consequential reliefs which otherwise would tantamount to by-passing the other alternative efficacious forums available to the petitioners under the law. The writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with limited liberty.

Summary

Issues:
1. Unconditional withdrawal of writ petition.
2. Objection to granting liberty to the petitioner.
3. Trend of filing writ petitions challenging constitutional validity of certain provisions.
4. Reference to larger bench for resolving legal conundrum.
5. Judicial observations on the legal position and hope for trend to stop.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought unconditional withdrawal of the writ petition, excluding prayer clause (c) to approach the appropriate forum. The respondent objected to granting any liberty to the petitioner, citing that the prayers sought were covered by a previous judgment. The court permitted withdrawal of the petition except for the prayer to quash the impugned ECIR, clarifying that any future proceedings on this prayer would be considered on its merits.

2. Despite a previous judgment upholding the vires of certain provisions, the court noted a trend of filing writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of these provisions. The court observed that such petitions bypassed alternative forums available under the law. The court emphasized the need to respect previous judgments and discouraged re-litigating issues already decided by the court.

3. The court referenced a case involving a request to place the matter before a larger bench for resolving legal conundrums. Arguments were made to refer the previous judgment to a larger bench for reconsideration. The court highlighted the importance of judicial discipline and stare decisis in maintaining precedential value and continuity in legal proceedings.

4. Judicial observations from a related case were reproduced to emphasize the need to adhere to legal principles and not seek reference to a larger bench or defer matters pending resolution of larger issues. The court allowed the appeals arising from the order of the Division Bench, setting aside the previous decision and allowing the Enforcement Directorate to proceed further.

5. The court acknowledged similar submissions made in the present petition and expressed agreement with the legal position established in the related case. The court hoped that the trend of challenging legal provisions through writ petitions would cease. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with limited liberty, in line with the petitioner's request and the court's observations on the legal trend.