28 July 2025 Legal Updates

Supreme Court Stays PMLA Trial In Case Where Chargesheet In Predicate Offence Not Filed For 7 Yrs

What Happened?

In the case of S. Srividhya and Ors. v. Assistant Director and Anr. [SLP(Crl) No. 10113-10115/2025], a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta of the Supreme Court recently stayed the trial of four accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The decision came after Senior Advocate PB Suresh argued that the petitioners were not named in the predicate offense and questioned how a PMLA trial could proceed when no chargesheet had been filed in the underlying CBI case for seven years. The case originated from a 2018 FIR registered by CBI under Sections 120B/406/420/468/471 IPC against M/s Cethar Limited based on Indian Bank's complaint, following which the Enforcement Directorate registered an ECIR and brought the petitioners within prosecution scope.

Key Legal Principle

This case establishes that PMLA trials may be stayed when there is unreasonable delay in filing chargesheets in predicate offenses, especially against accused who weren't named in the original FIR. The petitioners - all women and family members of the company's former Chairman and MD - successfully argued they were prosecuted solely based on familial ties without evidence of possessing proceeds of crime. The Court's decision reinforces the principle that money laundering prosecutions must maintain a clear nexus between the accused and the alleged criminal activity, and cannot proceed indefinitely without corresponding progress in the underlying scheduled offense. This ruling is significant for understanding the interplay between PMLA provisions and procedural fairness in criminal law.

'Every Day Hundreds Of Dog Bites': Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance Of Report On Stray Dogs Attacking Kids In Delhi

What Happened?

On July 28, 2025, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of a news report titled "City hounded by strays and kids pay price" published in the Delhi edition of Times of India. A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan registered a writ petition after being alarmed by reports of infants, children, and elderly persons falling prey to rabies due to bites from unvaccinated stray dogs. The Court noted the "disturbing and alarming figures and facts" showing hundreds of daily dog bite cases in cities and outskirt areas, leading to rabies infections and deaths among vulnerable populations. The bench directed the Registry to register the matter as a suo motu petition and ordered that the case along with the news report be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.

Key Legal Principle

This case demonstrates the Supreme Court's suo motu jurisdiction under Article 32, where the Court can take cognisance of matters of public importance without any formal petition being filed. The power of suo motu cognisance allows the Court to intervene in cases involving fundamental rights violations or public welfare issues based on newspaper reports or other reliable sources. This judicial activism reflects the Court's constitutional duty to protect citizens' right to life under Article 21, particularly when government authorities fail to address public health emergencies. The case also highlights how media reports can trigger constitutional remedies and judicial intervention in matters affecting public safety and health.

'Gross Misconduct' : Supreme Court Upholds Advocate's Suspension For Claiming Fees Based On MACT Compensation

What Happened?

In the case of X v. Bar Council of India and Ors., the Supreme Court refused to show leniency to an advocate whose license was suspended for 3 years over issuing a fee notice of Rs. 2.3 lakhs to a client who received only Rs. 5 lakhs as motor accident compensation. A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dealt with the petitioner-advocate's challenge against the original 5-year suspension imposed by the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, which had already been reduced to 3 years by the Bar Council of India. Justice Mehta strongly criticized the conduct, stating "You've sent a notice of fees of Rs. 2,30,000 against a claim of Rs. 5,00,000? How can you? Can the legal fees be [greater] than the outcome?" and termed it "gross misconduct." The Court expressed concern about exploitation of poor people seeking motor accident compensation by advocates' groups and rejected the petitioner's plea for further reduction, with Justice Nath observing "we don't know how many others you have cheated like this."

Key Legal Principle

This case reinforces professional ethics in legal practice, particularly regarding reasonable fee structures under the Advocates Act, 1961 and Bar Council rules. The Supreme Court's decision establishes that charging disproportionate fees based on compensation outcomes constitutes professional misconduct warranting disciplinary action. The case highlights the regulatory role of Bar Councils in maintaining professional standards and protecting clients from exploitation. It also demonstrates that contingency fee arrangements, while not entirely prohibited, must be reasonable and proportionate to the services rendered and outcomes achieved, failing which they amount to gross professional misconduct deserving severe punishment including suspension of practice.