Can PMLA adjudicating authority function without judicial member? Supreme Court reserves ver…

It matters to citizens because it addresses whether the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA must include a member with legal experience to pass quasi-judicial orders, a question that affects the procedural validity of asset attachment cases.

Who it concerns: The Directorate of Enforcement (Appellant), M/s. Karvy India Realty Limited and other companies (Respondents), the Andhra Pradesh High Court, and the public affected by PMLA adjudication procedures.

What the document says

• The case involves an intra-court appeal against a Single Judge's order dated 13.03.2023 that quashed a provisional order of attachment and show cause notice issued under PMLA.
• The Single Judge had held that the Adjudicating Authority performs quasi-judicial functions and therefore must consist of members with requisite qualifications in the field of law.
• The Single Judge also held that the adjudicating authority becomes functus officio after 180 days if the provisional order is not affirmed.
• The Additional Solicitor General argued that the Adjudicating Authority is not a judicial tribunal and that the Single Judge erred in reading down Section 6(5)(b) of PMLA to require a legal member.
• The respondents argued that the Adjudicating Authority has the trappings of a judicial function and must be constituted with a member having experience in law, citing Section 6(2) of PMLA.
• The High Court identified the sole issue for consideration as whether the power under Section 8 of PMLA can be exercised only by a member having experience in the field of law.
• The document text ends before the final verdict is delivered, indicating the court was considering the submissions and statutory provisions.

Also in the document

• The title of the document states that the Supreme Court reserves its verdict, but the provided text is a High Court judgment dated 12.02.2024, not a Supreme Court order.
• The text references a stay by the Supreme Court in 'Union of India vs. J.Sekar' dated 04.07.2018, which stayed a Delhi High Court judgment relied upon by the respondents.
• The document notes that the PMLA is described by the Supreme Court in 'Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. Union of India' as 'sui generis legislation' that is neither purely regulatory nor purely penal.