<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday deferred its hearing on review petitions against its July 2022 judgment which upheld the validity of stringent provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.</p><p>Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, the second senior-most judge, presiding over a three-judge bench allowed Centre's plea for more time to respond.</p><p>Justice Kaul, set to retire next month, said he is "doing so with a heavy heart" as no time would be left to pen down the judgment.</p>.SC to consider review plea against its same-sex marriage verdict on Nov 28. <p>"A deferment would really leave no time for this court to pen down the order... the nature of challenge which is constitutional in its basis, whether a case has been made referring some or any aspects to a larger bench, the amendment application is allowed. The amended petition is taken on record. Counter affidavit to the amended to be filed in four weeks. Rejoinder be filed in four weeks thereafter (sic)," the bench, also comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi said.</p><p>The bench referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India to "reconstitute a bench in view of one of us demitting office". "Necessary orders be obtained from the Chief Justice of India,” it said.</p><p>Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that in view of arguments made, he will need time to examine these issues and sought deferment. </p><p>After two days of hearing, the bench allowed Mehta’s plea.</p><p>"What can I do? I am doing this with a little heavy heart (sic),” said Justice Kaul.</p><p>The petitioners led by Congress leader Govind Singh questioned the validity of some other sections of the PMLA other than original Sections 50 and 63.</p><p>Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, contended that the matter is regarding reference to a larger bench and it does not need a judgment.</p><p>The petitioners contended the matter should be referred to a five-judge bench, claiming the verdict in the Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary judgment (by a three-judge bench) was incorrect.</p><p>The bench, however, said, “We cannot look at it cursorily, it requires deliberation”. </p><p>The bench said one has to give some reasons for referral, and “not merely because we may not agree with the previous view.”</p><p>Claiming that the ED has become an "unruly horse", Sibal had on Wednesday said, "The PMLA insofar as it allows for an officer of the Enforcement Directorate to summon any person to record his statement during the course of an investigation, require the said person to tell the truth in such statement and to sign the said statement, under the threat of penalty or arrest is violative of Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution”.</p>
<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday deferred its hearing on review petitions against its July 2022 judgment which upheld the validity of stringent provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.</p><p>Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, the second senior-most judge, presiding over a three-judge bench allowed Centre's plea for more time to respond.</p><p>Justice Kaul, set to retire next month, said he is "doing so with a heavy heart" as no time would be left to pen down the judgment.</p>.SC to consider review plea against its same-sex marriage verdict on Nov 28. <p>"A deferment would really leave no time for this court to pen down the order... the nature of challenge which is constitutional in its basis, whether a case has been made referring some or any aspects to a larger bench, the amendment application is allowed. The amended petition is taken on record. Counter affidavit to the amended to be filed in four weeks. Rejoinder be filed in four weeks thereafter (sic)," the bench, also comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi said.</p><p>The bench referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India to "reconstitute a bench in view of one of us demitting office". "Necessary orders be obtained from the Chief Justice of India,” it said.</p><p>Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that in view of arguments made, he will need time to examine these issues and sought deferment. </p><p>After two days of hearing, the bench allowed Mehta’s plea.</p><p>"What can I do? I am doing this with a little heavy heart (sic),” said Justice Kaul.</p><p>The petitioners led by Congress leader Govind Singh questioned the validity of some other sections of the PMLA other than original Sections 50 and 63.</p><p>Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, contended that the matter is regarding reference to a larger bench and it does not need a judgment.</p><p>The petitioners contended the matter should be referred to a five-judge bench, claiming the verdict in the Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary judgment (by a three-judge bench) was incorrect.</p><p>The bench, however, said, “We cannot look at it cursorily, it requires deliberation”. </p><p>The bench said one has to give some reasons for referral, and “not merely because we may not agree with the previous view.”</p><p>Claiming that the ED has become an "unruly horse", Sibal had on Wednesday said, "The PMLA insofar as it allows for an officer of the Enforcement Directorate to summon any person to record his statement during the course of an investigation, require the said person to tell the truth in such statement and to sign the said statement, under the threat of penalty or arrest is violative of Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution”.</p>
