‘Thousands of Cases, One Adjudicator?’ Supreme Court Raises PMLA Concerns

The Supreme Court has raised concerns over how property attachment cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act are being decided.

The court questioned whether one person should handle a large number of such cases, especially when the decision can directly affect someone’s property.

What Is the Supreme Court Concerned About?

The main concern is simple: when the Enforcement Directorate attaches a property under the PMLA, the attachment has to go through an adjudication process.

The Supreme Court questioned whether a single member of the adjudicating authority can properly examine a large number of cases within the required 180-day period.

The bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V M Mohana, asked whether such cases would receive proper consideration when one member has to deal with thousands of matters.

Why Does This Matter to Property Owners?

A property attachment can have serious consequences for the person concerned. The Supreme Court said such action affects possession and a person’s right to enter the property.

For this reason, the court indicated that confirming an attachment cannot be treated like a routine administrative decision. Each case requires proper examination because the decision directly affects property rights.

Why Is the 180-Day Period Important?

The law provides a limited period for dealing with provisional property attachments. The court questioned whether one member can carefully handle a very large number of cases within 180 days.

During the hearing, the bench referred to the pressure of dealing with around 3,000 to 5,000 cases within six months and questioned whether there would be a genuine application of mind in every matter.

The concern was whether the need to decide cases quickly could affect how carefully each case is examined.

Proposal for Conducting Cyber Crisis Drill, Tabletop Exercise (TTEx) & CCMP Readiness Exercise

How Many Attachment Orders Are Involved?

One of the petitioners referred to data showing that 8,851 cases had been initiated by the ED, while more than 3,000 attachment orders had been issued. It was also submitted that only 60 cases had reached trial.

The ED disputed the way these figures were presented. Additional Solicitor General Anil Kaushik told the court that 3,000 attachment orders did not mean 3,000 separate cases because several attachment orders could be issued in a single matter.

He said 461 attachment orders were issued between April 1, 2024 and March 31, 2025.

Can One Person Decide These Cases?

The PMLA provides for an adjudicating authority consisting of a chairperson and two other members with expertise in areas such as law, administration or finance. The law also allows one-member or two-member benches in specified circumstances.

The petitioners questioned whether important property attachment cases should be decided by a single member, particularly when that person may not have judicial experience.

The ED defended the system, arguing that the law permits single-member benches and that not every case necessarily involves complicated legal questions.

What Has the Supreme Court Asked the ED to Provide?

The Supreme Court has asked the ED to provide information about the number of attachment orders it has issued.

The agency has also been asked to provide details about how long the adjudicating authority takes to decide challenges against those attachment orders.

This information will help the court examine how the current system is functioning in practice.

What Happens Now?

The Supreme Court has reserved its judgment on the issue. This means the arguments have been heard and the court will give its decision later.

The central question is whether the existing single-member system provides enough scrutiny when decisions can significantly affect a person’s property.

The420 Takeaway: “When Property Is at Stake, Every Case Needs Proper Scrutiny”

For ordinary people, the issue is about the safeguards available when property is attached under the anti-money laundering law.

The Supreme Court is examining whether one member working under a strict deadline can give each case sufficient attention, while the ED maintains that the law permits single-member benches in specified situations.