Amending a writ petition to challenge PMLA Sections 50 and 63 as unconstitutional rejected; other non-vires changes allowed

The dominant issue was whether an amendment could be allowed in an Art. 226 writ to add a prayer declaring ss. 50 and 63 PMLA unconstitutional. Relying on SC precedent upholding the vires of those provisions, and noting the petitioner's admission that the challenge had already been rejected (while asserting it was per incuriam), the HC held that such a relief could not be entertained through amendment. Further, applying s. 141 CPC as clarified by SC, the HC held CPC procedural provisions do not bind writ proceedings and it would adopt an expeditious procedure; accordingly, the proposed additional relief was rejected. All other non-vires amendments were allowed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether amendment of the writ petition should be permitted to add an express relief seeking declaration that Sections 50 and 63 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 are ultra vires the Constitution, when the constitutionality of those provisions has already been upheld by the Supreme Court and the same question is also pending before the Supreme Court.

(ii) Whether the Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, is bound to apply the liberal amendment principles under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for allowing amendments to writ pleadings.

(iii) Whether the proposed amendments seeking quashing of recorded statements and quashing of summons (on constitutional grounds), and correction of the synopsis describing the petition as under Article 32 instead of Article 226, are permissible as incidental/clarificatory amendments consistent with the existing writ reliefs.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i): Amendment to add an express prayer to declare Sections 50 and 63 PMLA ultra vires

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court treated itself as bound by the Supreme Court's final pronouncement upholding the validity of Sections 50 and 63 and noted that the same constitutional question was also under consideration before the Supreme Court in other pending matters.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that the constitutionality of Sections 50 and 63 had already been upheld by the Supreme Court, including conclusions that the Section 50 process is an "inquiry" (not "investigation" in the strict sense), that statements recorded under the Act are not hit by Articles 20(3) or 21, and that Section 63 does not suffer from arbitrariness. It further reasoned that allowing the proposed prayer would necessarily compel the High Court to re-test constitutionality already settled by the Supreme Court, which the High Court "cannot venture into," particularly when the Supreme Court is also seized of the same vires issue in other pending matters. The Court rejected the contention that liberty granted by the Supreme Court to raise "all contentions" before the High Court could be stretched to include a renewed challenge to the vires of Sections 50 and 63; it construed that liberty as permitting the petitioner to raise other issues (apart from the vires challenge) before the High Court.

Conclusion: The amendment introducing the ultra vires prayer was rejected because the High Court could not consider that prayer on merits in view of binding Supreme Court determination and pendency of the same vires challenge before the Supreme Court.

Issue (ii): Applicability of Order VI Rule 17 CPC and "liberal amendment" principles to writ proceedings under Article 226

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court examined Section 141 CPC (including its Explanation excluding Article 226 proceedings) and relied on the Supreme Court's articulation that CPC procedure is not automatically applicable to Article 226 proceedings.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that, although the argument of liberal allowance of amendments under Order VI Rule 17 may appear attractive, a writ petition under Article 226 is not governed by CPC procedure as a matter of binding application. Relying on Section 141 CPC (which expressly excludes Article 226 proceedings from "proceedings" to which CPC suit procedure applies), the Court concluded it was not bound to apply CPC amendment standards to writ pleadings. It therefore rejected the premise that merits of the amendment must be ignored solely because Order VI Rule 17 generally mandates a liberal approach in suits.

Conclusion: The Court held that CPC provisions, including Order VI Rule 17, are not binding in Article 226 proceedings; hence, the Court could refuse an amendment where the proposed relief is not entertainable by the High Court.

Issue (iii): Permissibility of other proposed amendments (quashing of statements, quashing of summons, and correction of Article 32/Article 226 description)

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court assessed whether these amendments were consistent with, and incidental to, the existing writ reliefs and whether they were merely corrective/clarificatory.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted that the proposed prayers seeking quashing of recorded statements and summons were incidental to the reliefs already claimed in the writ petition (including challenge to coercive actions and prosecution on constitutional grounds). It also treated the incorrect mention in the synopsis that the petition was under Article 32 as a typographical error, since the petition otherwise was under Article 226, and allowed correction accordingly.

Conclusion: The amendments adding prayers to quash the statements and summons, and the correction in the synopsis from Article 32 to Article 226, were allowed.

Final outcome: The amendment seeking insertion of the ultra vires relief against Sections 50 and 63 PMLA was rejected; the remaining amendments were allowed, resulting in partial allowance of the interlocutory application.

---