Right to be Heard Before Cognizance: Supreme Court's Stance in PMLA Case

Content

RIGHT TO BE HEARD BEFORE COGNIZANCE: SUPREME COURT'S STANCE IN PMLA CASE

Introduction

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has reiterated the importance of the right to be heard before taking cognizance of an offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The judgment, delivered on May 19, 2026, in the case of Parvinder Singh vs Directorate of Enforcement, emphasizes that the procedural safeguards provided under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) must be adhered to, particularly the requirement of hearing the accused as stipulated in Section 223. This ruling not only clarifies the procedural framework for PMLA cases but also reinforces the fundamental right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Case Background

The case arose from a criminal appeal filed by Parvinder Singh against a judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court. The High Court had dismissed his revision petitions challenging the cognizance taken by the Special Court under the PMLA. The appellant was arrested following the registration of an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) by the Directorate of Enforcement, and a prosecution complaint was filed shortly thereafter. However, the appellant contended that he was not given an opportunity to be heard before the Special Court took cognizance of the offence, as required by the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS.

What The Lower Authorities Held

The Special Court had taken cognizance of the offence against the appellant without affording him a hearing, leading to the filing of a recall application by the appellant. The Special Court dismissed this application, stating that the cognizance taken could not be reconsidered. The appellant then approached the High Court, which upheld the Special Court's decision, asserting that the provisions of the BNSS did not apply to his case since the proceedings under the PMLA had commenced prior to the BNSS coming into force.

The Court's Reasoning

The Supreme Court, while examining the case, focused on the interpretation of Section 223 of the BNSS, which mandates that no cognizance of an offence shall be taken without giving the accused an opportunity to be heard. The Court emphasized that this requirement is not merely procedural but substantive, forming part of the accused's right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court held that the word 'shall' in the proviso indicates a mandatory requirement, and any cognizance taken without compliance would be void ab initio.

The Court also addressed the argument that the proceedings under the PMLA were initiated before the BNSS came into force. It clarified that while the complaint was filed prior to the BNSS, the cognizance was taken after its commencement, thus making the provisions of the BNSS applicable. The Court rejected the respondent's contention that the PMLA is a stand-alone enactment, asserting that the procedural safeguards of the BNSS must be followed in PMLA cases.

Statutory Interpretation

The Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 223 of the BNSS is pivotal. The first proviso to Section 223(1) explicitly states that the accused must be heard before cognizance is taken. This provision is rooted in the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair trial, which are fundamental to the Indian legal system. The Court's ruling reinforces that procedural safeguards are not mere formalities but essential rights that protect the liberty of individuals.

The Court also highlighted the significance of Section 531(2)(a) of the BNSS, which saves proceedings initiated under the CrPC prior to the BNSS's commencement. This provision ensures that ongoing proceedings are not disrupted and that the rights of the accused are preserved.

Why This Judgment Matters

This judgment is a landmark ruling that underscores the importance of the right to be heard in criminal proceedings, particularly in cases involving serious allegations such as money laundering. It sets a precedent that reinforces the procedural rights of the accused, ensuring that they are afforded a fair opportunity to present their case before any judicial action is taken against them. The ruling also clarifies the applicability of the BNSS to PMLA cases, providing much-needed clarity to legal practitioners and stakeholders in the criminal justice system.

Final Outcome

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and directed the Special Court to afford the appellant an opportunity to be heard before taking cognizance of the offence. The Court mandated that this exercise be completed within eight weeks from the receipt of the judgment.

Case Details

• Case Title: Parvinder Singh vs Directorate of Enforcement
• Citation: 2026 INSC 519
• Court: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
• Bench: Justice M. M. Sundresh, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
• Date of Judgment: 2026-05-19