New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed 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 PMLA, saying that he should face trial like ordinary citizens.
“Just because I am rich I will challenge the validity of the law… this practice must stop,” a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said while declining to hear the plea filed by lawyer Gautam Khaitan.
“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.
Khaitan has challenged Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The provision mandates that if a court other than a designated PMLA special court takes cognisance of a “scheduled offence” (predicate 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.
During the hearing, the bench said it does not approve of what it described as a growing trend of affluent accused approaching the top court to challenge the vires of statutory provisions while criminal trials are ongoing.
Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Khaitan, submitted that the constitutional validity of Section 44(1)(c) was in question and required examination by the court.
The bench said that the validity of the provisions of the PMLA is already under consideration in review petitions arising from its judgement in the Vijay Madanlal case.
“Since the issue relating to the validity of provisions of the PMLA is under consideration in certain review petitions, it appears to us that the legality of Section 44(1)(c) shall be examined in the course of those proceedings. We see no reason to entertain a separate writ petition,” the CJI said.
The bench dismissed the petition, while keeping the question of law open. It said it can grant liberty to senior lawyer Luthra to intervene in the ongoing review pleas.
