Amending writ petition to challenge PMLA Sections 50 and 63 validity-must intervene in pending case, not amend petition

The dominant issue was whether amendment of a writ petition to challenge the constitutional validity of ss. 50 and 63 of the PMLA could be permitted after the HC declined the amendment, holding the Code was inapplicable and the proposed relief could not be entertained in that proceeding. The SC held that the petitioner should instead raise the constitutional challenge by filing an intervention application in the pending batch of connected matters concerning the same issue before the SC; accordingly, the request to pursue the amendment route was not granted and the SLP was disposed of. As to factual contentions, the petitioner was left to pursue them in the pending HC proceedings.

---

---

Liberty was granted to the petitioner, insofar as the validity of Sections 50 and 63 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is concerned, to move an intervention application in the batch of matters connected with Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 132 of 2025 pending before the Court, and "raise all the contentions on the constitutionality of the said provisions." On the petitioner's fact-based contentions, the Court held that the petitioner "shall be at liberty to pursue the same in the proceedings pending before the High Court." The "interim protection" earlier granted by the Court and subsequently extended by the High Court was "further extended for a period of one week" to allow the High Court to consider and pass an appropriate interim order "after hearing both sides." The special leave petition was disposed of along with pending applications, if any.

---