Supreme Court Frowns Upon Practice Of Rich Accused Raising Constitutional Challenges To Avoid Trial

The Supreme Court today frowned upon the plea by a lawyer challenging S. 44(1)(c) of the PMLA and observed it to be an attempt to 'bypass the system' by 'affluent persons' facing trial in relation to the AugustaWestland Scam. 

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a writ petition filed by lawyer Gautam Khaitan challenging the validity of S. 44(1)(c) of the PMLA. 

Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA mandates that when a money-laundering offence is connected with a scheduled offence, both cases should, as far as practicable, be tried together by the same Special Court.

At the outset, the CJI expressed concerns over pleas challenging the vires of the statutes by the accused, as an attempt to escape trial. 

The CJI opined, " Mr Luthra, this is a very unique kind of litigation that has started in this court - if you facing a trial in any case, then you start challenging its vires in the Supreme Court ....becuase I am facing trial, because I am a rich person - therefore I must be heard, given a special audience, special hearing...Because I am feeling uncomfortable with this trial. 

In November 2025, the Delhi High Court upheld the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) provisional attachment of properties belonging to lawyer Gautam Khaitan, rejecting his challenge to the action in the AgustaWestland VVIP helicopter deal.

Sr Advocate Siddarth Luthra, appearing for Khaitan, clarified that this was not about anyone's privilege of resources, but the issue stems from the pending review pleas in the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Case. 

The CJI stated that the review petitions are already pending, and fresh petitions on the same issue were not required. 

Luthra stressed that the present petition only challenges the validity of S. 44(1)(c). He urged the bench to tag the plea with the pending matters or allow the petitioner to file an intervention there. 

Refusing the same, the CJI sternly remarked, " I am going to take a harsh view, this practice has to be stopped. These affluent people think they can bypass the entire system. I am not going to permit that. They are facing trial, face like an ordinary citizen. In this country, millions of people are facing ..."

Luthra stressed that it may be the case that in the pending review petitions, a challenge to these specific provisions is not made. He requested the court to allow him to intervene and raise the issue in the pending review petitions. 

Reiterating the need for the petitioner to face trial in the ordinary course, the Bench said, " Liberty is granted to Mr Luthra, not the petitioner." 

Dismissing the writ petition, the bench proceeded to pass the following order

"Since the issue of the eligibility of provisions of PMLA is under consideration in certain review petitions filed in the case of Vijay Madanlal Case, it seems to us that the legality of S.44(1)(C) of the said Act can also be examined in course of those proceedings , we see no reason to entertain seperate Writ Petition, the Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed, the question of law is kept open." 

The bench also hinted at commencing the hearing of the pending review petitions by the end of the month. 

Background

The case dates back to the Indian Air Force's plan in 2000s to replace MI-8 VIP helicopters. AgustaWestland won the contract after the service ceiling requirement was reduced from 6,000 meters to 4,500 meters.

Investigations alleged that kickbacks from AgustaWestland were routed through Indian companies, including IDS India and Aeromatrix Info Solution Ltd., with Gautam Khaitan facilitating introductions between foreign and Indian officials.

Following a CBI case, the ED issued the attachment order on November 15, 2014, under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The High Court agreed with the Single Judge that the attachment was lawful. It observed that a Provisional Attachment Order is "is a tentative measure undertaken to safeguard the integrity of future proceedings under the PMLA".

It also noted that the ED focused only on properties acquired between 2009 and 2014, aligning with the alleged money-laundering period. Accordingly, it dismissed Khaitan's plea challenging single judge order.

Case Title: Gautam Khaitan v Union of India| W.P.(Crl.) No. 000516 / 2025