Directorate of Enforcement vs. Bablu Sonkar [February 09, 2024]
The case arose from a writ petition filed by Bablu Sonkar in the Bombay High Court seeking to quash a complaint lodged against him by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The High Court heard the matter and reserved judgment on April 21, 2023, but did not deliver a verdict for several months. During this period, the roster of judges handling criminal writ petitions changed, leading to administrative complications regarding which Bench should pronounce the reserved judgment.
Key Legal Issue
The principal issue before the Supreme Court was the validity of the process followed by the Bombay High Court in reserving and ultimately not delivering judgment on Bablu Sonkar’s writ petition, and the subsequent administrative handling of the matter after the roster change.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the report of the Registrar General of the Bombay High Court, which detailed the sequence of events: the Bench that heard and reserved the matter on April 21, 2023, ceased to have the criminal writ jurisdiction after June 4, 2023, with a new Bench taking over from June 5, 2023.
The Court noted that no interim relief had been granted to Bablu Sonkar during the pendency of the writ petition.
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of judicial discipline and administrative propriety in the handling of reserved judgments, especially when there is a change in the roster. It observed that once a Bench has ceased to have jurisdiction over a matter due to roster change, it cannot pronounce a reserved judgment in that matter.
The Court clarified that the proper course in such situations is for the matter to be listed afresh before the new roster Bench, which should then hear the parties and deliver judgment.
The Supreme Court did not address the merits of the underlying PMLA complaint or the substantive issues raised in the writ petition, restricting its ruling to the procedural irregularity.
Judgment
The Supreme Court set aside the process adopted by the Bombay High Court, holding that the judgment reserved by a Bench that had lost its jurisdiction due to roster change could not be validly delivered.
The Court directed that the writ petition be listed afresh before an appropriate Bench of the Bombay High Court for hearing and disposal in accordance with law.
Significance
This judgment underscores the importance of procedural propriety and judicial discipline in the administration of justice, especially regarding the pronouncement of reserved judgments after roster changes. It reinforces that a Bench must have jurisdiction at the time of delivering a judgment, and matters must be heard afresh if there is a change in the judicial roster before pronouncement.
Citation:
Directorate of Enforcement and Another v. Bablu Sonkar and Another, Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2024 (@ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 16226 of 2023), Supreme Court of India, decided on February 9, 2024.
RELATED Blog
0 comments