The Enforcement Directorate's decision on the property attachment would not only be concerned with the maximum period of such an attachment but also with who has the right to make that decision. The Supreme Court has left it open whether the PMLA Adjudicating Authority can work on the basis of a single-member bench and whether there has to be a PMLA Judicial Member for the provisional attachment cases.
The Enforcement Directorate’s decision on the property attachment would not only be concerned with the maximum period of such an attachment but also with who has the right to make that decision. The Supreme Court has left it open whether the PMLA adjudicating Authority can work on the basis of a single member bench and whether
In the case of Mukesh Kumar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., the question was examined by a three-judge Bench under Section 6 of the PMLA, including the Authority's adjudication process under Section 8 of the PMLA.
What Did the Supreme Court Ask About the PMLA Adjudicating Authority?
In the case of the Supreme Court's hearing on 15th September, 2026, a practical problem came to light. If property is attached under the PMLA, how would the authority make sure that the issue gets proper judicial review? The three-judge bench considered:
- Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana.
- Core issue: Can the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA operate with one judge?
- Judicial Member: Does the PMLA Judicial Member need to be present for the adjudication?
- Application of mind: The Bench pointed out that there may be issues with the application of mind with respect to such matters owing to the workload.
- Workload: The bench’s hearing pertained to roughly 3,000-5,000 matters needing adjudication in the six months/180 days period.
- Current status: The Supreme Court reserved its judgment.
Such a judgment will have very important consequences for future judgments in ED attachment cases where property belonging to a person continues to be provisionally attached.
What Is the PMLA Adjudicating Authority and What Does It Do?
ED attachment alone does not necessarily signify the confiscation of the property attached finally or conviction of the person in respect of any offense. The PMLA Adjudicating Authority, constituted under Section 6 of the PMLA, evaluates the attachment separately through the process of adjudication.
Following the provisional attachment PMLA order, the case proceeds to the process of complaint and show cause under the statute before the Authority. The Authority, under Section 8 PMLA, takes into consideration the material placed before it and decides whether or not to confirm the attachment.
- Section 6 PMLA: Makes provision for the constitution of the Adjudicating Authority.
- Section 8 PMLA: Regulates the procedure of adjudication in respect of the attachment and ancillary proceedings.
- ED attachment: This attachment pertains to the property only and does not in any way amount to finding someone guilty of a crime.
- Special Court: The criminal proceedings, trials, and subsequent confiscation fall into the domain of the Special Court.
Hence, it is the task of the authority to determine the issue of attachment, whereas criminal liability and forfeiture are different issues altogether.
Can a PMLA Adjudicating Authority Function With One Member?
The controversy revolves around the manner in which various provisions of Section 6 of the PMLA will have to function together. Although Section 6 provides for the setting up of the Authority as a multi-member body, it is explicit about its provisions for the setting up of smaller benches of such an Authority.
- Section 6(2): PMLA Adjudicating Authority shall comprise a Chairperson and two other members having expertise envisaged in law, administration, finance or accountancy.
- Section 6(5) PMLA: The Authority shall have the power to exercise its jurisdiction by means of benches comprising one or two members, which gives rise to legal justification for hearing in benches of one member.
- Section 6(7) PMLA: In a case where the Chairperson or any member feels that a case must be heard by two members, it may be referred to benches of two members.
The legal question here revolves around whether permission to sit on a one-member bench implies that the person constituting such a bench must be a Supreme Court lawyer and possess the legal or judicial skills required to perform the duties involved. The petitioners contend that the nature of the adjudication demands such expertise, while the Union and the ED maintain that the composition of the bench is governed by statute. The matter is currently pending before the Supreme Court.
Does the PMLA Authority Have to Include a Judicial Member?
PMLA Judicial Member issue is not merely about whether the PMLA Adjudicating Authority is able to constitute itself as a one-man bench. It is rather about the very nature of the functions being performed by the PMLA Adjudicating Authority at the time of confirmation of the property attachment.
- Petitioners’ argument: The Authority is a body which discharges quasi-judicial functions, especially in deciding whether the attachment should be confirmed under Section 8 of the PMLA.
- Property consequences: Confirmation of an attachment may have a considerable impact on how a person manages or enjoys the attached property. Hence, the quality of adjudication matters.
- Legal expertise: Petitioners also argued that the process requires adequate legal or judicial expertise given that the Authority evaluates the legal and factual matters.
- Separate questions: Even though Section 6 permits a one-member bench, this does not necessarily determine whether a member of such a bench requires judicial expertise.
- Government/ED response: The legislation explicitly allows a one-member bench and makes no mention that each one of them must contain a Judicial Member.
- Different expertise: Section 6 envisages Members having expertise in diverse areas such as law, administration, finance, and accountancy.
The Supreme Court has withheld its opinion on whether a Judicial Member is required.
What Had Earlier Courts Held About Single-Member PMLA Benches?
Before the hearing in the Supreme Court of India on PMLA, there were various High Courts that had already decided on the question of whether the PMLA Adjudicating Authority can work through one member and whether he should be a lawyer or not.
J. Sekar v. Union of India
According to J. Sekar, the Delhi High Court has ruled that Section 6(5)(b) of PMLA allows the Chairperson to set up a bench with one or two members. Moreover, it has been ruled that it is not necessary for the Authority to consist of judicial members only.
Subsequent High Court approach
This was subsequently followed in Delhi, including in Gold Croft Properties. In 2024, the Telangana High Court also held that an Authority with a sole member could exercise powers under Section 8 and that the member did not necessarily have to be a lawyer.
2026 developments
Delhi High Court followed Poonam Gupta (February 2026) on the basis of J. Sekar by refusing to accept an objection raised against the constitution of a single-member Authority in the matter of Dr. Rahul Agrawal (August 25, 2026). In Dr. Rahul Agrawal (August 25, 2026), the Delhi High Court noted the status quo that allows single-member decision-making while considering the repercussions of having a flawed constitution. In August 2026, the Karnataka High Court heard arguments relating to the appointment of a new Judicial Member.
The interpretations of the High Courts serve as the backdrop, but since the matter is pending before the Supreme Court, it would be premature to consider these as the ultimate ruling across the nation.
Why Is the 180-Day Attachment Period Important?
The time limit of 180 days means that the workload of the PMLA Adjudicating Authority becomes very significant. In terms of the procedure for provisional attachment under the PMLA, there is a need to complete the whole process of adjudication within the time limit stipulated by the statute.
The Supreme Court’s September 15 hearing brought that practical concern into focus:
- Time-bound process: Provisional attachment PMLA procedure is governed by statute.
- Large volume: Justice Joymalya Bagchi raised the issue of whether an Authority would be able to form its mind about 3,000- 5,000 cases in six months.
- Quality of adjudication: This issue was raised as to whether this volume of work could put pressure on one, two, or three members.
- Why composition matters: Here, the issue of workload is linked to the larger issue of adequacy of consideration in attachment proceedings by a single-member or multiple-member bench.
The question, thus, is not only one of numbers, but whether the PMLA Adjudicating Authority's institutional structure will allow the exercise of mind within the statutory period.
What Did the Petitioners Argue Before the Supreme Court?
The petitioners objected to the manner in which the PMLA Adjudicating Authority was operating, especially in cases where a decision on matters relating to attachment had been made by one member. The issues raised by them were:
- Quasi-judicial role: It was asserted by the petitioners that the Authority functions in a substantive quasi-judicial capacity, rather than in an administrative capacity.
- Property consequences: It was also contended by the petitioners that an order confirming an ED attachment could potentially have severe consequences for property, necessitating independent and legal adjudication.
- Section 6 PMLA: The petitioners have also referred to the statutory composition of the Authority and the expertise envisaged for its members.
- Judicial expertise: According to the petitioners, PMLA Judicial Member or legal expertise is required when the Authority deals with issues regarding attachment and proceeds of crime.
- Single-member functioning: They argued that an objection could be raised to such a proceeding on the basis that it was done by a single member without the essential element of the judiciary.
- Application of mind: Another argument put forward by them related to the importance of a considered judgment on each occasion.
These were submissions of the petitioners, not findings of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is yet to make any decision on the issues
What Did the ED and Union Government Argue?
The ED and Union Government supported the present statutory regime, arguing that:
- PMLA Section 6(5) allows either one or two members sitting on the bench.
- The Chairperson has discretion as far as the bench composition is concerned, and PMLA Section 6(7) enables transfer to a two-member bench where it is necessary.
- It is not obligatory to have a Judicial Member in each one-member bench as per the law.
- They considered that provisional attachment under the PMLA process was an interim step before any further steps could be taken in respect of the matter.
These continue to be the Government/ED submissions, not the Court’s.
What Other PMLA Issues Are Pending and What Happens to Attachment Cases?
The bundle before the Supreme Court also includes other related issues relating to the second proviso to Section 5(1) of the PMLA, the requirements of Section 5(1) of the PMLA, Section 8(1) of the PMLA and the requirement of recording reasons to believe in the matter of attachment. The main question that is discussed herein, however, is the constitution of the PMLA Adjudicating Authority.
In the absence of any decision from the Court, all proceedings before a single member cannot be said to be invalid. The mere fact that the issue is still under consideration does not automatically make an ED attachment void. It may be determined by the constitution of the Authority, its stage of procedure, and the relevant statutory remedy.
What Questions Will the Supreme Court's Judgment Clarify?
The verdict rendered by the Supreme Court could provide clarity on certain questions related to the PMLA Adjudicating Authority, such as:
- Legal validity of a single-judge bench.
- Necessity of a PMLA Judicial Member on a bench.
- Interaction between Section 6(5) PMLA and Sections 6(7) and other compositions.
- Validity of powers exercisable by a single-member bench under Section 8 PMLA.
- Consequences of order passed by a differently constituted bench.
- Impact on the process of provisional attachment in PMLA proceedings.
However, since the Supreme Court has not made its ruling, the issues remain open for the time being.