<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said wealth alone does not entitle individuals to question the validity of a law.</p><p>The top court made the observation while refusing to consider a plea by a lawyer, facing money laundering charges in connection with the AgustaWestland VVIP helicopter deal, challenging validity of a provision of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.</p>.Delhi riots | Court does not proceed on identity, ideology, belief or association: SC while denying bail Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam.<p>"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," a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said.</p><p>Declining to entertain the plea filed by lawyer Gautam Khaitan, the bench said, "Just because I am rich, I will challenge the validity of the law, this practice must stop."</p><p>Appearing for Khaitan, senior advocate Sidharth Luthra submitted that the constitutional validity of Section 44 was in question and required examination by the court. </p><p>The bench, however, said it does not approve of affluent accused approaching it to challenge the vires of statutory provisions while criminal trials are ongoing.</p><p>The court pointed out that the validity of the provisions of the PMLA is already under consideration in review petitions, which arose out of its judgment in the Vijay Madanlal case. </p><p>"It appears to us that the legality of Section 44 shall be examined in the course of those proceedings. We see no reason to entertain a separate writ petition," the bench said.</p><p>The court, however, granted liberty to the petitioner to intervene in the ongoing review pleas. </p>
<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said wealth alone does not entitle individuals to question the validity of a law.</p><p>The top court made the observation while refusing to consider a plea by a lawyer, facing money laundering charges in connection with the AgustaWestland VVIP helicopter deal, challenging validity of a provision of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.</p>.Delhi riots | Court does not proceed on identity, ideology, belief or association: SC while denying bail Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam.<p>"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," a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said.</p><p>Declining to entertain the plea filed by lawyer Gautam Khaitan, the bench said, "Just because I am rich, I will challenge the validity of the law, this practice must stop."</p><p>Appearing for Khaitan, senior advocate Sidharth Luthra submitted that the constitutional validity of Section 44 was in question and required examination by the court. </p><p>The bench, however, said it does not approve of affluent accused approaching it to challenge the vires of statutory provisions while criminal trials are ongoing.</p><p>The court pointed out that the validity of the provisions of the PMLA is already under consideration in review petitions, which arose out of its judgment in the Vijay Madanlal case. </p><p>"It appears to us that the legality of Section 44 shall be examined in the course of those proceedings. We see no reason to entertain a separate writ petition," the bench said.</p><p>The court, however, granted liberty to the petitioner to intervene in the ongoing review pleas. </p>
