Money-laundering as a standalone offence - exclusive jurisdiction of the Enforcement Directorate under the PML Act - investigation of scheduled offences by appropriate investigating agencies - trial of scheduled offences by Special Court vis-a -vis investigation - power of the Central Government under section 45(1A) of the PML ActMoney-laundering as a standalone offence - exclusive jurisdiction of the Enforcement Directorate under the PML Act - investigation of scheduled offences by appropriate investigating agencies - Whether the Prevention of Money Laundering Act vests exclusive authority in the Enforcement Directorate to investigate scheduled offences, thereby precluding investigation by other agencies such as the CBI - HELD THAT: - The Court held that the PML Act creates a distinct offence of money laundering and provides special mechanisms for attachment, adjudication and trial of offences under that Act, but this scheme does not confer exclusive investigative jurisdiction on the Enforcement Directorate over the scheduled offences themselves. The statutory scheme (including provisions concerning trial by Special Courts) contemplates that while offences under the PML Act are tried in a special forum, nothing in the Act restricts investigation of offences other than money laundering by appropriate investigating agencies. The embargo on cognizance by a Special Court in the second proviso to section 45(1) relates only to offences punishable under section 4 of the PML Act and does not mean that the Enforcement Directorate is the sole agency empowered to investigate all scheduled offences. Consequently, the CBI may investigate offences under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act where appropriate, while the ED retains its specialized role under the PML Act and the Central Government its powers under section 45(1A). [Paras 40, 41, 42, 43, 46]The contention that the Enforcement Directorate alone can investigate scheduled offences under the PML Act is rejected; the Act does not vest exclusive investigative jurisdiction in the ED so as to preclude investigation by agencies like the CBI.Investigation of scheduled offences by appropriate investigating agencies - power of the Central Government under section 45(1A) of the PML Act - trial of scheduled offences by Special Court vis-a -vis investigation - Whether the High Court was justified in directing investigation of the alleged multi state and multi national offences by the Central Bureau of Investigation - HELD THAT: - The High Court recorded factual and legal reasons indicating the scale, multi state and international dimensions of the alleged corrupt enrichment and investments, and concluded that a systematic, scientific and expert investigation by the CBI was warranted. The Supreme Court, on reviewing the materials and submissions, found no ground to interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion in referring the matter to the CBI. The Court noted that the CBI was then investigating offences under the IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act and was not conducting any PML Act investigation, which remains within the ED's domain unless the Central Government invokes section 45(1A). Given these considerations, the High Court's direction was sustained. [Paras 6, 7, 43, 44, 47]The High Court's direction that the CBI investigate the matter is affirmed; there is no basis for interference with that referral.Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed for lack of merit. The Supreme Court found no exclusive investigative monopoly in the Enforcement Directorate over scheduled offences under the PML Act that would bar other agencies (such as the CBI) from investigating offences under the IPC or the Prevention of Corruption Act; the High Court's referral to the CBI was upheld. Parties to bear their own costs.

Stay of an interlocutory order - prima facie satisfaction of commission of offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - interference in extraordinary circumstances to prevent frustration of investigation - authorisation of custodial detention for custodial interrogation by Enforcement DirectorateStay of an interlocutory order - interference in extraordinary circumstances to prevent frustration of investigation - Grant of stay against the order dated 11.3.2011 passed by the Principal Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court and Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Mumbai in R.A. No. 1 of 2011 in ECIR/02/MZO/2007. - HELD THAT: - The Supreme Court granted a stay of the impugned order of 11.3.2011 on the ground that the learned Principal Judge's order, if permitted to operate even briefly, would create an extraordinary situation likely to frustrate the ongoing investigation. The Court accepted that the available material prima facie discloses commission of an offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and concluded that the extraordinary nature, complexity and magnitude of the case justify immediate interference by this Court to preserve the integrity of the investigation. In view of these considerations the Court stayed the operation of the lower court's order. [Paras 2, 3, 4, 5]Stay of operation of the impugned order dated 11.3.2011 granted.Prima facie satisfaction of commission of offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - authorisation of custodial detention for custodial interrogation by Enforcement Directorate - Authorisation of custody of the respondent/accused with the Enforcement Directorate for custodial interrogation for a limited period. - HELD THAT: - Having formed prima facie satisfaction that the material on record discloses an offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and noting the extraordinary circumstances, complexity and magnitude of the matter, the Court authorised the detention of the respondent/accused in the custody of the Enforcement Directorate for custodial interrogation. The detention was specifically authorised for a fixed period of four days to enable custodial interrogation by the authorities. [Paras 3, 6, 7]Detention of the respondent/accused in Enforcement Directorate custody authorised for four days.Final Conclusion: The Supreme Court stayed the impugned order dated 11.3.2011 and, having found prima facie satisfaction of an offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and extraordinary circumstances risking frustration of the investigation, authorised custody of the respondent with the Enforcement Directorate for four days for custodial interrogation.

Independence and impartiality of tribunals - separation of powers between Judiciary and Executive - judicial control in appointment of tribunal chairpersons and members - safeguards for tenure and removal of tribunal members - qualifications for judicial and expert members of specialized tribunals - power of judicial review as an essential feature of the ConstitutionIndependence and impartiality of tribunals - separation of powers between Judiciary and Executive - power of judicial review as an essential feature of the Constitution - Constitutionality of provisions and rules under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 insofar as they affected independence of the Adjudicating Authority and Appellate Tribunal and the selection process for their Chairperson and Members. - HELD THAT: - The Court examined whether the statutory scheme and Rules created under the Act impermissibly undermined judicial independence and the separation of powers by vesting appointment and control in executive-dominated selection mechanisms. Relying on the constitutional principle that judicial review and a judiciary free from executive domination are integral to the Constitution, the Court accepted that safeguards ensuring freedom from executive control are necessary for Tribunals exercising judicial powers. The Court found the defects highlighted by the petitioner merited correction and, having considered proposals presented by learned counsel and the respondent, approved specific amendments and proposals that enhance judicial participation in appointments and protect independence. The Court therefore treated the remedial measures as bringing the scheme into conformity with constitutional requirements and the principles laid down in earlier decisions concerning tribunals and judicial review.Court approved the remedial amendments/proposals to the appointment and composition provisions and treated those measures as addressing the constitutional objections to the Act and Rules.Judicial control in appointment of tribunal chairpersons and members - qualifications for judicial and expert members of specialized tribunals - Validity and sufficiency of the specific amendments to Rules concerning (a) appointment of the Chairperson on recommendation of the Chief Justice of India, (b) presence of a Supreme Court judge nominated by the CJI as Chairperson of the Selection Committee for Members, and (c) specification of academic/financial qualifications for finance/accountancy Members of the Adjudicating Authority. - HELD THAT: - The Court considered the amended Rules which (i) provide that the Chairperson of the Appellate Tribunal shall be appointed on the recommendation of the Chief Justice of India, (ii) amend the Selection Committee composition to have a Supreme Court judge nominated by the CJI as its Chairperson for selecting Members, and (iii) specify academic qualifications or relevant experience for the finance/accounting Member of the Adjudicating Authority. The amendments were held to be consonant with constitutional requirements for securing independence and impartiality of tribunals, and to furnish adequate judicial participation and requisite expertise in appointments. The Court recorded that these amendments have been effected (or are to be effected) and approved them as being in tune with the Constitution and judicial precedents.Amended Rules concerning appointment method, composition of Selection Committee and prescribed qualifications for finance/accounting Members are approved as constitutionally adequate.Safeguards for tenure and removal of tribunal members - judicial control in appointment of tribunal chairpersons and members - Need for and acceptability of proposed statutory amendment to strengthen protection against removal of Chairperson/Members by mandating consultation with the Chief Justice of India. - HELD THAT: - The Court noted the proposal to amend the statute to provide that Chairperson/Members appointed in consultation with the Chief Justice of India shall not be removed without mandatory consultation with the CJI. While the Rule amendments affecting appointment and selection were completed, the Court recorded that a legislative amendment safeguarding removal procedures is being proposed and that a draft Bill is under preparation. The Court treated this proposal as an appropriate measure to enhance security of tenure and to reduce executive domination, and directed implementation of the accepted measures.Proposal to amend the statute to require mandatory consultation with the CJI for removal is endorsed and placed on record as a further safeguard; draft legislative action to be taken.Role of expert adjudicating authorities in specialised statutes - qualifications for judicial and expert members of specialized tribunals - Whether the qualifications and composition of the Adjudicating Authority, including the status of persons 'qualified to be a District Judge' or other legal members, require amendment to restrict appointments only to serving or retired District Judges. - HELD THAT: - The Court considered submissions that legal membership should be confined to serving or retired District Judges and that the Chairperson of the Adjudicating Authority should be the Legal Member. The respondent explained and the Court recorded reasons why persons 'qualified to be a District Judge' have been treated as acceptable in other statutes and why the Adjudicating Authority is intended as a body of experts from different fields to perform largely civil/adjudicatory functions. The Court accepted that, in the context of the Act, there was no necessity to amend the statute or Rules to restrict legal membership to serving/retired District Judges, given the specialized nature of the tribunal and the existing eligibility frameworks.No amendment required to restrict legal membership to serving or retired District Judges; existing provisions treating those 'qualified to be a District Judge' as eligible are acceptable for the Adjudicating Authority.Final Conclusion: The Court accepted that certain provisions and Rules under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 required remedial measures to protect the independence and impartiality of the Adjudicating Authority and Appellate Tribunal. It approved the amendments and proposals enhancing judicial participation in appointments, specifying qualifications for expert Members, and endorsing proposed safeguards on removal; directed the Union of India to implement the approved changes expeditiously, and disposed of the writ petition with no costs.

Humanitarian grounds - temporary release for medical treatment - security for return to face criminal proceedings - personal bond - forfeiture of security on breach of undertaking - reporting to diplomatic mission - non-suspension of trial in absence of accusedHumanitarian grounds - temporary release for medical treatment - Permission to travel abroad for medical treatment granted to the petitioner on humanitarian grounds. - HELD THAT: - The Court accepted contemporaneous medical reports, including the examination by Dr. Dhawan and the operative findings of Dr. Telang, which established that the petitioner suffers from cancer of the left ovary in a secondary stage and requires chemotherapy. In view of her medical condition and the presence of her parents and relatives in Canada, the Court considered it desirable on humanitarian grounds to permit the petitioner to go to Canada for one year to receive appropriate treatment and family support. The order emphasises that availability of treatment in India does not preclude the grant, given the petitioner's need to be with her relations while undergoing chemotherapy. [Paras 1, 2]Petitioner permitted to go to Canada for a period of one year on humanitarian grounds to receive medical treatment.Security for return to face criminal proceedings - personal bond - forfeiture of security on breach of undertaking - reporting to diplomatic mission - Conditions imposed for permitting travel: affidavit undertaking to return within one year; existing deposited sums to remain as security; additional personal bonds by named sureties; periodic reporting to the High Commissioner; and forfeiture clause for breach. - HELD THAT: - To protect the interests of justice, the Court conditioned the temporary release on procedural and security measures. The petitioner must file an affidavit undertaking to return to India within one year from departure. Existing amounts deposited in various courts aggregating to the sum specified in the order will stand as security for return. Additionally, two persons present in court consented to furnish personal bonds each for the specified sum in favour of the Registrar within one week; only upon furnishing those bonds will the petitioner be entitled to leave India. The petitioner must inform the High Commissioner for India in Canada about her whereabouts every three months commencing from the date specified, and the High Commissioner is requested to forward such information to the Government of India. A breach of the undertaking will render a specified portion of the security liable for forfeiture. The Court granted liberty to apply. [Paras 2]Travel permitted subject to filing an affidavit undertaking to return within one year, continuance of existing deposited securities, furnishing of specified personal bonds within one week, quarterly reporting to the High Commissioner for India in Canada, and forfeiture of part of the security on breach; liberty to apply reserved.Non-suspension of trial in absence of accused - Trials pending against the petitioner need not be adjourned or held up because of her absence. - HELD THAT: - The Court clarified that the grant of permission to travel is limited to humanitarian medical grounds and does not entail suspension of criminal proceedings. The trials of all accused in the mentioned courts may proceed in the petitioner's absence, ensuring that criminal process is not unduly delayed by the temporary leave granted for treatment. [Paras 3]Pending trials need not be held up on account of the petitioner's absence during the one-year period.Final Conclusion: Permission granted for the petitioner to travel to Canada for one year for medical treatment on humanitarian grounds, subject to an affidavit undertaking to return within one year, retention of existing securities and furnishing of additional personal bonds, quarterly reporting to the High Commissioner for India in Canada, a forfeiture provision for breach, and without suspension of pending trials; liberty to apply preserved.