Writ amendment limits in Article 226 proceedings bar fresh vires challenge, but allow incidental and clerical corrections.

In Article 226 writ proceedings, a High Court need not permit an amendment that introduces a fresh challenge to the constitutional validity of Sections 50 and 63 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 where that issue has already been upheld by the Supreme Court or is pending before it. The Court held that the liberal amendment approach under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC does not apply in the same manner to writ proceedings, and Section 141 CPC excludes such proceedings. However, consequential prayers linked to the existing reliefs, and correction of a typographical reference to Article 32 in the synopsis, were allowed because they did not raise a barred independent controversy.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner could be permitted to amend the writ petition to add a prayer challenging the vires of Sections 50 and 63 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. (ii) Whether the remaining amendments, including the additional consequential prayers and correction of the reference to Article 32 in the synopsis, could be allowed.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner could be permitted to amend the writ petition to add a prayer challenging the vires of Sections 50 and 63 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The challenge to the constitutional validity of Sections 50 and 63 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 had already been upheld by the Supreme Court and was also stated to be pending consideration in other proceedings before that Court. In writ jurisdiction under Article 226, the Court held that it was not bound to apply the amendment liberalities of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the same manner as in civil suits, and that Section 141 of the Code expressly excludes proceedings under Article 226. The liberty granted by the Supreme Court to raise contentions before the appropriate forum did not extend to re-agitating an issue already settled or presently seized by the Supreme Court.

Conclusion: The proposed amendment seeking to add the vires challenge was rejected and is against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the remaining amendments, including the additional consequential prayers and correction of the reference to Article 32 in the synopsis, could be allowed.

Analysis: The additional prayers were found to be incidental to the reliefs already sought in the writ petition and the correction in the synopsis was treated as a typographical error. These amendments did not introduce a fresh independent controversy requiring the Court to enter upon a barred constitutional validity question.

Conclusion: The remaining amendments were allowed and are in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The interlocutory application was allowed only to a limited extent, with the amendment introducing the constitutional challenge declined and the consequential and clerical amendments permitted.

Ratio Decidendi: A High Court, in writ proceedings under Article 226, need not permit an amendment that would require adjudication of a constitutional question already upheld by the Supreme Court or presently pending before that Court, and the procedural framework of the Code of Civil Procedure does not control such writ proceedings by virtue of Section 141 of the Code.

---