Kerala High Court: Not Every PMLA Case Needs to Come Under Article 226!

lakshmi180592
Jun 25
3 min read

In an important judgment, the Kerala High Court has made it clear that not all cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) should be brought before the court using Article 226 of the Constitution.

While the High Court has wide powers under Article 226, Justice PV Kunhikrishnan explained that those powers must be used with care, especially when the PMLA already provides a proper legal process for appeals and reviews.

What Was the Case About?

The case, Mohankumar K & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., involved a writ petition filed by two property owners. Their properties were provisionally attached by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under Section 5(1) of the PMLA. This attachment was later confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority under the same law.

The petitioners argued that:

They had lawfully purchased the properties before any offence was committed.
The properties could not be considered "proceeds of crime" under the PMLA.
Their objections were not properly considered by the authorities.

Because of these issues, they filed a writ petition under Article 226, asking the High Court to cancel the ED’s attachment orders.

What Did the High Court Say?

The High Court said that while it does have the power to interfere under Article 226, it does not need to get involved in every case, especially when the PMLA already provides clear appeal procedures.

"It is true that there is no limitation on exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226… But if this Court interferes in each and every case… this Court will be burdened with litigation," the judge said.

The Court noted that:

The PMLA is a “complete code”, which already allows for appeals to a Tribunal under Section 26, and later, to the High Court under Section 42.
Only in rare or “extraordinary situations” — like when there is a violation of fundamental rights or a clear misuse of power — should Article 226 be used.
The High Court is already overwhelmed with thousands of cases, including appeals from convicts in jail, and must focus on urgent matters.

No Extraordinary Situation Found

After reviewing the facts of the case, the Court decided that this was not an “extraordinary” case where bypassing the legal appeal process was justified.

"Each case is to be decided based on its own facts… Just because one judge allowed a similar petition doesn’t mean every similar case should be treated the same way," the Court explained.

As a result, the Court dismissed the writ petition, saying it was not maintainable. However, the petitioners were given liberty to file an appeal with the Appellate Tribunal under PMLA.

Who Represented the Parties?

For the Petitioners: Advocates Babu S Nair, Smitha Babu, PA Rajesh, Pranav, KP Dhaneesh, Siddharth Karun Pisharody, and Farsana Noushad
For the Enforcement Directorate: Advocate Christy Theresa Suresh

Conclusion

This decision is a reminder that while Article 226 is a powerful legal tool, it should be used only when no other remedy exists or when serious violations occur. The High Court emphasized that courts should not get involved too early in cases where proper legal channels are already available.

For those involved in PMLA cases, this judgment highlights the importance of following the appeal process step by step — and turning to the High Court only in truly exceptional cases.