Supreme Court questions ED over single-member PMLA adjudication

The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the Enforcement Directorate over allowing a single member of the PMLA adjudicating authority to decide property attachment cases. Asking whether there could be real application of mind or "signing on the dotted lines" when 3,000-5,000 cases must be handled within the statutory 180-day period, the bench led by CJI Surya Kant, with justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, reserved judgment and directed ED to furnish attachment order details. ED said only 461 orders were issued in 2024-25.

Written by AI from Hindustan Times — India · not yet reviewed by an editor · Published 16 Sept 2026, 8:47 am IST

Source

Hindustan Times — India · read the original report ↗

#supreme court#ed#pmla#judiciary#property attachment

Desk check · compared with the source

What the desk checked (5)

A bench led by CJI Surya Kant, with justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, asked whether a single member can apply mind to 3,000-5,000 cases in six months — Attributed in source to the bench during the hearing; quote appears in source
Petitioner counsel Gopal Sankaranarayanan cited website data showing 8,851 cases initiated by ED, only 60 reaching trial, and over 3,000 attachment orders — Attributed to named senior advocate citing the authority's website; figures appear in source
ASG Anil Kaushik said only 461 attachment orders were issued between April 1, 2024 and March 31, 2025 — Attributed to the ED's counsel in source; disputes petitioners' figures
The court reserved judgment and directed ED to file a note within a week with attachment and disposal data — Stated as court direction in source; no order copy cited
Karvy Realty (India) Ltd has challenged a 2024 Telangana High Court ruling upholding single-member adjudication under Section 8 of PMLA — Case detail as described in source; not independently verified

Written by AI from Hindustan Times — India · not yet reviewed by an editor · How we use AI · Report an error

Analysts’ view opinion

AI Political Analyst

On the surface this is a technical dispute about tribunal composition, but politically it lands squarely in the long-running battle over the ED's powers. The Supreme Court asking whether a single member — possibly one without judicial experience — can confirm property attachments gives institutional weight to a critique the opposition has voiced for years: that the process itself functions as punishment. That said, the ED's defence is not weak either: Section 6 of the PMLA does permit one- or two-member benches, and it has disputed the petitioners' numbers, citing 461 attachment orders in 2024-25.

The bench's concern is about the quality of adjudication, not the ED's motives — but the political echo will be far louder than the legal question.
The core issue is whether the safeguards the court itself relied on while upholding the PMLA in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (2022) are working in practice.
Opposition parties are likely to read the hearing as vindication of long-standing complaints, while the government side can fairly frame it as a procedural question about a statutory body.
The clash over numbers — over 3,000 attachment orders versus the ED's 461 for 2024-25 — will shape the political narrative, since the entire workload argument rests on it.
By reserving judgment yet still demanding data, the court signals it may be looking for a workable remedy rather than a purely declaratory ruling.

What to watch — Watch the ED's data note due within a week and the reserved judgment — specifically whether the court mandates a judicial member on the adjudicating authority or leaves Section 6 untouched.

The story establishes nothing about whether ED action is politically motivated, and the court has delivered no ruling — these are questions posed during a hearing.

Deep dive

Research brief · 8 facts · 5 dates · exam-ready

The brief

Context

Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the Enforcement Directorate can provisionally attach properties suspected to be proceeds of crime, and those attachments must be confirmed by an adjudicating authority within a statutory 180-day period. Section 6 of PMLA envisages an adjudicating authority with a chairperson and two members drawn from law, administration or finance, but also allows benches of one or two members in specified circumstances. A batch of petitions, including one by M/s Karvy Realty (India) Ltd challenging a 2024 Telangana High Court ruling, questions whether a single member — especially one without legal experience — can confirm attachments under Section 8. On Tuesday, a Supreme Court bench led by CJI Surya Kant reserved judgment after questioning ED on whether genuine application of mind is possible in such a scheme.

Key facts

A Supreme Court bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana reserved judgment on whether a single member of the PMLA adjudicating authority can confirm property attachments.
The bench asked: "Can you imagine the pressure put on the tribunal to look into 3,000-5,000 cases within six months? Will there be real application of mind or signing on the dotted lines?"
Additional solicitor general Anil Kaushik told the court that only 461 attachment orders were issued between April 1, 2024 and March 31, 2025.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan cited the authority's website data: 8,851 cases initiated by ED, of which only 60 reached trial, with more than 3,000 attachment orders.
One petition by M/s Karvy Realty (India) Ltd challenges a 2024 Telangana High Court ruling that a single-member adjudicating authority could exercise Section 8 powers even without legal experience.
Section 6 of PMLA provides for an adjudicating authority of a chairperson and two members with expertise in law, administration or finance, and permits one- or two-member benches in specified circumstances.
Regulation 26(2) of the 2013 PMLA Adjudicating Authority regulations requires every sheet of an order to be signed by the chairperson and a member.
The court directed ED to file a note within a week giving the number of attachment orders issued and time taken by the authority to dispose of challenges.

Timeline

2013PMLA Adjudicating Authority regulations framed; Regulation 26(2) requires each sheet of an order to be signed by the chairperson and a member.
2022Supreme Court upholds constitutional validity of PMLA in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs Union of India, noting safeguards in the adjudicatory mechanism.
2024Telangana High Court holds a single-member adjudicating authority can exercise Section 8 powers even without legal experience.
April 1, 2024 to March 31, 2025ED says 461 attachment orders were issued in this period.
Tuesday (hearing date as reported)Supreme Court questions ED on single-member adjudication, reserves judgment and directs ED to furnish attachment data within a week.

Who has a stake

Enforcement Directorate (ED) — Its provisional attachment powers and the speed of their confirmation depend on the single-member mechanism it defended under Section 6.
PMLA Adjudicating Authority — Its composition, workload and legitimacy are under scrutiny; petitioners say it functioned with only a single member for a considerable period.
Supreme Court bench (CJI Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi, V Mohana) — Must decide whether single-member adjudication of attachments is legally valid; judgment reserved.
Property owners and accused persons under PMLA — Attachment has civil consequences on possession and right to enter property; quality of adjudication affects their property rights.
M/s Karvy Realty (India) Ltd and other petitioners — Challenging the 2024 Telangana HC ruling and seeking a judicial member on the bench deciding attachments.
Counsel involved — Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Siddharth Agarwal for petitioners; ASG Anil Kaushik and Zoheb Hossain for ED.

Why it matters

Property attachment under PMLA carries serious civil consequences on possession and the right to enter property, and confirmation by the adjudicating authority is the main independent check on ED's power before trial. If a single member — possibly without legal training — must clear a large caseload within 180 days, the safeguard risks becoming formal rather than real. The Supreme Court's reserved judgment could reshape the composition and functioning of PMLA adjudicating authorities.

UPSC angle

Prelims pointers

Section 6 of PMLA: adjudicating authority of a chairperson plus two members with expertise in law, administration or finance; benches of one or two members permitted in specified circumstances.
Section 8 of PMLA deals with adjudication, including confirmation of provisional attachment orders.
Statutory period for adjudicating attachment under PMLA as cited by the court: 180 days (six months).
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs Union of India (2022): Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of PMLA.
Regulation 26(2), PMLA Adjudicating Authority regulations, 2013: every sheet of an order to be signed by the chairperson and a member.
ED data before the court: 461 attachment orders issued between April 1, 2024 and March 31, 2025.

Mains framing

The dispute over single-member PMLA adjudication is essentially about whether a statutory safeguard remains substantive under conditions of volume and time pressure. Section 6 contemplates a three-member authority with expertise in law, administration and finance while also permitting one- or two-member benches, and the 2024 Telangana High Court reading allowed a lone member without legal experience to confirm attachments under Section 8 — a power the petitioners call the \"heart and soul\" of a PMLA investigation. The Supreme Court's concern is twofold: that a single member facing thousands of matters within 180 days may end up \"signing on the dotted lines\", and that attachment, though framed by ED as merely barring transfer, has real civil consequences on possession and access to property. Petitioners add a structural argument — the absence of a judicial member weakens separation of powers and the authority's independence from the executive, and Regulation 26(2) of the 2013 regulations, requiring signatures of the chairperson and a member, suggests the scheme never envisaged a single-member bench. ED counters that the 3,000-plus figure conflates multiple orders in one matter, that only 461 orders were issued in 2024-25, and that not every case involves complex legal questions. A way forward consistent with the record would be reading Section 6 harmoniously so that benches deciding attachments include a legally qualified member, ensuring the authority is fully staffed, and generating transparent data on orders issued and disposal times — precisely what the court has now asked ED to furnish.

Key terms

PMLA: Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the anti-money laundering law under which ED investigates and attaches proceeds of crime.
Provisional attachment: An ED order restraining dealing with property suspected to be proceeds of crime, which must be confirmed by the adjudicating authority.
Adjudicating Authority (PMLA): Body under Section 6 of PMLA that decides whether provisionally attached property should remain attached.
Section 8, PMLA: Provision governing adjudication of attachment, under which a bench confirms or rejects a provisional attachment.
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs Union of India (2022): Supreme Court judgment upholding PMLA's constitutional validity, relying partly on safeguards in the adjudicatory mechanism.
Regulation 26(2), 2013 regulations: Requires every sheet of an adjudicating authority order to be signed by the chairperson and a member.

Practice questions

Critically examine whether single-member adjudication of property attachments under PMLA can serve as an effective check on executive power. Discuss with reference to Sections 6 and 8 of the Act.
"Attachment of property under anti-money laundering law has serious civil consequences and cannot be a routine administrative exercise." Analyse this proposition in light of the Supreme Court's observations.
Discuss how caseload and statutory timelines can affect the quality of adjudication in tribunals, using the PMLA adjudicating authority as an example.

Grounded only in the source report — figures and dates are the source's, not inferred.

Next storyHAL to hand over LCA trainers, Dhruv NG helicopters on September 18 →

← All stories