Blanche defends Trump's comments on Supreme Court after it rejects new mail-in voting restrictions

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court inquired whether it would be appropriate to have only one member on the Adjudicating Authority (AA) bench that confirms attachment orders issued by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, considering the volume of work. The three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant posed the question as it postponed its decision on whether the AA can confirm the seizure of assets without a judicial member present and whether it can function as a single-member bench.

The petitioners argued that only a small fraction of the cases filed by the ED results in trial, with attachments already being applied in all of them. The bench, including Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, requested the agency to provide data on this matter. Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhri argued that the AA is conducting a quasi-judicial task, not an administrative one, and should ideally consist of the chairperson and two other members, as noted by the court in the Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary case.

Chaudhri emphasized that the Act mandates the presence of a judicial member and pointed out that a single member has been serving as an AA for some time, although a legal expert was added more recently. He also highlighted that the Act allows the AA to sit in benches of one or two members. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioners, cited ED data showing that only 60 out of 8,851 cases initiated by the agency during a certain period proceeded to trial, indicating that property attachments would apply to all 8,851 cases.

This would mean civil consequences for the affected individuals would linger for years without even going to trial. Justice Bagchi questioned Additional Solicitor General Anil Kaushik, representing the ED, about the feasibility of proper judicial consideration in such a scenario. She emphasized the law's potential to impose significant pressure on a tribunal to evaluate thousands of cases within six months, questioning the authenticity of judicial application of mind when tasked with such a workload.