Archive · 16 Sep 2026
Supreme Court Reserves Verdict on Single-Member PMLA Attachments Authority
The Supreme Court is deciding who should approve property attachments made under a money-laundering law.
The Enforcement Directorate can temporarily attach property when it suspects money laundering.
Another body, called the Adjudicating Authority, decides whether the attachment should continue.
The petitioners say this body should include a legally trained judicial member.
They are concerned that property decisions may not receive enough careful review if only one person handles them.
The ED says the law allows the authority to work with one or two members in some situations.
It also says that not every case needs a judicial member to decide complicated legal issues.
The judges asked how one member could properly review a large number of cases.
The court has finished hearing arguments but has not yet announced its decision.
The Supreme Court reserved judgment on whether a single-member PMLA authority can confirm ED property attachments without a judicial member.
The case concerns Sections 6 and 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Petitioners argued that judicial participation is necessary because attachment decisions can have civil consequences.
The Enforcement Directorate said Section 6 permits single- or two-member benches and that not every case requires a judicial member.
The court asked the ED to submit data within two days on attachment cases and related proceedings before the authority.
- Who
- A three-judge Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, petitioners including M/s Karvy Realty (India) Ltd., and the Enforcement Directorate.
- What
- The court is deciding whether a single-member, non-judicial PMLA Adjudicating Authority can confirm provisional property attachments made by the ED.
- When
- The arguments concluded on Tuesday, when the court reserved its verdict.
- Where
- Before the Supreme Court of India.
- Why
- The court must determine whether the authority’s composition and functioning comply with the PMLA when attachment decisions affect property rights.
Petitioners
Enforcement Directorate
Need for a judicial member
Petitioners
A judicial member, including someone qualified for appointment as a district judge, is needed as an institutional safeguard when attachment orders have civil consequences.
Enforcement Directorate
Section 6 allows the authority to function through single- or two-member benches, and not every matter necessarily requires a judicial member.
Quality of review
Petitioners
A single non-judicial member may not provide meaningful application of mind when many attachment proceedings must be handled within the 180-day period.
Enforcement Directorate
The statutory provisions should be read harmoniously, and the authority can use smaller benches where cases do not involve complex or substantial legal questions.
Scale of proceedings
Petitioners
The petitioners questioned whether a large number of attachment cases can receive adequate consideration, especially when only a small proportion of ED cases is sent for trial.
Enforcement Directorate
The ED cited around 400 attachments in a year while defending the statutory framework and asked the court to consider the authority’s workload using official data.
- Law involved
- Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
- Key provisions
- Sections 6 and 8
- Agency involved
- Enforcement Directorate
- Statutory period
- Attachment proceedings must be adjudicated within 180 days
- Reported attachment volume
- The ED told the court that around 400 attachments took place in a year
- Court directive
- The ED must file an affidavit within two days with details of attachment cases before the authority
- Petitioner
- M/s Karvy Realty (India) Ltd.
