The Supreme Court has raised questions about whether a single member of the PMLA Adjudicating Authority can adequately examine a large volume of property-attachment cases within the statutory 180-day period. The issue arose during a hearing on whether the authority can confirm Enforcement Directorate (ED) attachment orders without a judicial member on the bench.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, questioned whether there could be sufficient application of mind when thousands of matters have to be handled within a limited period. The court subsequently reserved its decision on the issue.
Supreme Court Questions Workload of Adjudicating Authority
The proceedings concern the process through which provisional property attachments made under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) are adjudicated.
The bench questioned whether a single member could properly examine thousands of matters within six months. During the hearing, the court referred to a possible workload of around 3,000 to 5,000 cases and questioned whether each matter could receive meaningful consideration under such pressure.
The court also noted that property attachment has civil consequences because it can affect possession and the right to enter a property. This was part of the court's consideration of the level of scrutiny required in such proceedings.
Petitioners and ED Present Different Figures
During the hearing, the petitioners referred to information indicating that 8,851 cases had been initiated by the ED and that more than 3,000 attachment orders had been issued. They also pointed out that only 60 cases had reached trial.
The ED disputed the presentation of these figures, arguing that multiple attachment orders can arise from the same matter. The agency told the court that 461 attachment orders were issued between April 1, 2024, and March 31, 2025.
The difference in the figures is important because the number of attachment orders does not necessarily correspond to the number of separate cases.
Debate Over Single-Member Benches
Section 6 of the PMLA provides for an Adjudicating Authority comprising a chairperson and two other members with expertise in areas including law, administration or finance. The law also permits one-member or two-member benches in specified circumstances.
The petitioners questioned whether a matter involving significant property consequences should be decided by a single member, particularly where the bench does not include a judicial member. The ED, meanwhile, maintained that the statutory framework permits single-member benches in specified situations.
For businesses and property holders dealing with financial investigations, maintaining clear transaction records and documentation is important. Professional auditing services in india can assist businesses with financial review and record-control processes, although such services are separate from the statutory PMLA adjudication process.
Supreme Court Seeks Data From ED
The Supreme Court has asked the ED to provide information about the number of attachment orders issued and the time taken by the Adjudicating Authority to decide challenges to those orders.
The requested information is expected to help the court assess how the adjudication system is functioning in practice and whether the existing arrangement allows adequate consideration of individual attachment proceedings.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court has reserved its decision on the questions surrounding the composition and functioning of the PMLA Adjudicating Authority. The proceedings focus on whether a single-member bench can adequately handle a substantial workload while examining property attachments that can have significant civil consequences.