Supreme Court Declares Hearing Right under BNSS Section 223(1) Mandatory in PMLA Complaints

<h2>Supreme Court’s Verdict on Hearing Safeguard in Money‑Laundering Cases</h2> <p>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court — India’s apex judicial body that interprets the Constitution and settles disputes (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> has ruled that the first proviso of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) — The 2023 criminal code that replaces the old Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (GS2: Polity)">BNSS</span> under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Section 223(1) — Provision that mandates an opportunity of hearing to the accused before a court takes cognizance of a complaint (GS2: Polity)">Section 223(1)</span> is a substantive right flowing from <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 21 — Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to a fair trial (GS2: Polity)">Article 21</span> of the Constitution. Non‑compliance makes the cognizance order void ab initio, and the accused need not prove prejudice.</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>The bench of <strong>Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh</strong> set aside the Special Court’s cognizance order dated <strong>July 2, 2024</strong> and ordered a fresh hearing.</li> <li>The Court rejected the Enforcement Directorate’s claim that the old CrPC should apply because the complaint was filed before BNSS came into force on <strong>July 1, 2024</strong>.</li> <li>It held that the “shall” in the proviso makes the hearing requirement mandatory, not merely procedural.</li> <li>The decision clarifies the scope of the BNSS savings clause under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Section 531(2)(a) — Savings clause that allows proceedings already started under the old code to continue, but does not apply where no proceeding has begun (GS2: Polity)">Section 531(2)(a)</span>.</li> <li>The Special Court must now grant the accused an opportunity of hearing and take cognizance within eight weeks.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <ul> <li>The case involved a prosecution complaint under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) — Statute to curb money laundering and financing of illicit activities; includes special courts for trial (GS3: Economy)">PMLA</span> filed by the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Enforcement Directorate (ED) — Agency that investigates economic crimes, especially money‑laundering, under the PMLA (GS3: Economy)">Enforcement Directorate</span> on <strong>June 24, 2024</strong>.</li> <li>The complaint was registered in the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) in July 2023, but cognizance was taken only after BNSS became operative.</li> <li>The appellant, <strong>Parvinder Singh</strong>, argued that the Special Court must hear him before taking cognizance, invoking the BNSS provision.</li> <li>The Court relied on its earlier judgments in <em>Tarsem Lal v. ED</em>, <em>Yash Tuteja v. Union of India</em> and <em>Kaushal Kumar Agarwal v. ED</em> to affirm that complaint‑procedure provisions apply to PMLA cases.</li> </ul> <h3>Relevance for UPSC Aspirants</h3> <p>This judgment links three core UPSC topics: constitutional law (right to a fair trial under Article 21), criminal procedure (transition from CrPC to BNSS), and economic offences (PMLA). Understanding the mandatory nature of the hearing right helps answer questions on procedural safeguards, the hierarchy of statutes, and the impact of legislative reforms on existing cases. It also illustrates how the Supreme Court interprets “substantive” rights versus “procedural” steps, a frequent theme in GS 2 papers.</p> <h3>Way Forward</h3> <p>Lower courts must re‑examine any cognizance taken after <strong>July 1, 2024</strong> without granting a hearing, lest their orders be struck down. Legal practitioners should ensure compliance with the BNSS hearing provision to avoid void orders. For UPSC preparation, candidates should memorise the key provision (<span class="key-term" data-definition="Section 223(1) — Mandates a hearing before cognizance; non‑compliance voids the order (GS2: Polity)">Section 223(1)</span>) and its constitutional basis, as it may appear in case‑study questions or essay topics on criminal justice reforms.