NEW DELHI: After almost two days of hearing on a batch of petitions challenging the validity of some provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and for review of a 2022 verdict which upheld the law, the Supreme Court on Thursday ordered that the case would have to be heard afresh by a new bench as the Centre pressed for adjournment and the presiding judge is retiring next month.A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi heard the case for the entire day on Wednesday and till 3pm on Thursday during which petitioners concluded their submission but the Centre, which has been from the beginning seeking deferment of hearing because of petitioners amending their petition at the last moment, again argued that it be allowed to make its submissions on some other day.

Solicitor general Tushar Mehta said he was “handicapped” and needed some time to respond to the pleas of the petitioners who have expanded their challenge to the 2022 verdict beyond the issues they had initially raised.With December 15 being the last working day for Justice Kaul and also a constitution bench scheduled to assemble in the interregnum, the bench said it would not be possible for them to conclude the hearing and pass judgment (before December 15) in case of adjournment.Justice Kaul accepted the SG's request even as he made his disappointment plain.

No less disappointed were senior advocates Kapil Sibal and A M Singhvi.

Sibal and Singhvi had strongly opposed the Centre's plea for adjournment, with the former saying that two days of judicial time got “wasted” — a remark which was frowned upon by Justice Khanna, who found it to be improper.Singhvi said, “We are not raising new points and not pressing on amended petitions.

Everything is there in the petition filed earlier.

We have also filed our written submission within the timeframe fixed by the court but the government has not filed a written submission till now.

It is the 19th time that they are requesting an adjournment.”It was a dramatic end to the proceedings as the court, turning down the Centre's pleas for deferring the hearing, had even started hearing the petitioners, strengthening the prospect of the bench deciding whether to send the 2022 verdict for a review by a five-judge bench before Justice Kaul's retirement.

None saw the deferment coming until 3pm when the bench acceded to the SG's plea.“What can I do… I am doing this with a little heavy heart,” Justice Kaul said as went ahead with dictating the order for adjournment and placing the case before the CJI for constituting a new bench.

The court also admitted the amended petitions and asked the Centre and ED to file their response and posted the hearing after two months.Mehta argued that there are many new points raised in the amended petition and reasonable time be given to him respond and assist the court in the case.Before dictating the order, Justice Kaul responded, “We know everything.

But sometimes, things must be left unsaid.”“Deferment would leave no time for this court to pen down the order.

In view of the deferment now taking place and looking to the nature of the challenge, which is constitutional in its basis, and whether a case has been made out for referring some aspects to a larger bench, the amendment application is allowed...

The Chief Justice would have to reconstitute the bench in view of one of us demitting office,” the bench said.After the order was passed, Mehta apologised for the inconvenience but emphasised that only selective reading of the 2022 PMLA judgment was done by the petitioners and the court was not taken though the entirety of the Act and he needed some time to prepare.“Mr Solicitor, we understand everything.

On this side, we see and hear many things, but we don't say many things.

On a lighter note, I will have that privilege from January 1,” Justice Kaul said.At the outset of Thursday's hearing, the Centre made another attempt to get adjournment but it was opposed by Singhvi, who initiated the argument.

After a deliberation among judges, the bench decided to proceed in the case with Singhvi and Sibal assuring that no new points would be raised.

But when the Centre's turn came, the SG again pressed for adjournment.State govt vs Governors: Supreme Court raises questions over delay in Bill approval