MOHAN KUMAR K [PETITIONERS] Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA [RESPONDENTS]
WP(CRL.) NO. 722 OF 2025
(Delivered by THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN)
In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has held that not every order passed by adjudicating authorities under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) should be challenged through writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. Justice PV Kunhikrishnan emphasized that the High Court’s writ jurisdiction, although wide and discretionary, should not be routinely invoked when statutory remedies are available under the PMLA framework.
The judgment was delivered in the case of Mohankumar K & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., where the petitioners challenged the confirmation of a provisional property attachment order issued under Section 5(1) of the PMLA by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The adjudicating authority had upheld the attachment, which the petitioners sought to challenge via a writ petition, asserting that the properties were lawfully purchased prior to any alleged criminal activity by the sellers.
The petitioners argued that the properties were not ‘proceeds of crime’ as defined under the PMLA, and that their objections had not been properly considered by the adjudicating authority. They, therefore, sought High Court intervention on grounds of procedural and legal irregularities.
Justice Kunhikrishnan, however, underlined that the PMLA is a comprehensive legal code that provides a clear hierarchy of remedies: initial adjudication under Section 8, an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26, and a further appeal to the High Court under Section 42. Invoking Article 226 bypasses this appellate mechanism and should be reserved only for extraordinary circumstances, such as fundamental rights violations or jurisdictional overreach.
The Court observed:
“The jurisdiction of this Court may be wide, but if this Court interferes in each and every case in which there is an illegality or impropriety, it will be burdened with litigation. That is why the PMLA provides a separate procedure for filing an appeal and a second appeal.”
It further noted that overloading constitutional courts with matters that can be resolved through statutory forums would undermine the efficiency of the judiciary. The Court also stressed that thousands of pending cases, including criminal appeals involving convicts in jail, deserve priority and should not be delayed by avoidable writ petitions.
Importantly, the Court made it clear that each case under Article 226 must be assessed on its own merits. Just because a court previously exercised discretion in a similar matter does not create a binding precedent unless a specific legal principle was laid down.
In the present case, the Court found no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that would justify bypassing the statutory appellate remedy under the PMLA. It therefore dismissed the writ petitions as non-maintainable but granted the petitioners the liberty to pursue their appeals before the appropriate forum.
This judgment reinforces the principle that High Courts must exercise restraint while entertaining writ petitions in cases where adequate statutory remedies exist, particularly under special statutes like the PMLA that provide their own adjudicatory and appellate mechanisms.
