In Naresh Bansal & Ors. v. Adjudicating Authority & Anr., the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi addressed a situation arising under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), where the petitioners were left remediless due to the non-functioning of the Appellate Tribunal. The Court delivered a significant ruling safeguarding the constitutional right to an effective appeal when executive inaction results in the breakdown of statutory mechanisms.
The case arose from proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which had provisionally attached certain immovable properties belonging to the petitioners. This attachment was later confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners sought to challenge it before the Appellate Tribunal, as provided under Section 26 of the Act. However, due to long-pending vacancies and absence of an operative bench, the Tribunal remained non-functional for an extended period, leaving the petitioners without an avenue to seek judicial review.
Faced with this administrative vacuum, the petitioners approached the High Court, contending that their valuable right to appeal had been rendered illusory. They argued that they could not be compelled to suffer irreversible consequences of a coercive order while the appellate forum contemplated by the statute remained unavailable. They further contended that such a scenario violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee fairness, due process, and access to justice.
The Hon’ble Bench examined the larger constitutional implications of the issue. The Court observed that the right to appeal, once conferred by statute, becomes a substantive vested right. If the State fails to ensure the functioning of the appellate forum, litigants cannot be penalised for the Government’s administrative lapses. The Court stressed that a statutory right cannot be reduced to a mere formality when its enforcement depends on executive action.
After analyzing the facts and the statutory framework under PMLA, the Court held that the petitioners could not be deprived of an effective remedy. The Bench recognised that attachment of property under PMLA has severe civil consequences and that access to an appellate remedy is an indispensable safeguard. The Court also noted that the prolonged vacancy in the Tribunal had caused significant hardship to litigants across the country.
In its operative directions, the High Court ordered that no coercive steps shall be taken on the basis of the Adjudicating Authority’s confirmation order until the Appellate Tribunal becomes fully functional and is able to hear the petitioners’ appeal. The Court permitted the petitioners to file their statutory appeal within a specified period and clarified that such appeals would be taken up immediately once the Tribunal resumes functioning. The Court’s intervention ensured that the petitioners’ rights remained protected during the intervening period.
This judgment underscores the Hon’ble Court’s commitment to preventing constitutional rights from being undermined by administrative inaction. It reiterates that when Parliament creates adjudicatory bodies for specialised statutes, the Government is duty-bound to ensure their timely constitution and continuous functioning. The ruling affirms that access to justice is a core facet of the rule of law, and litigants cannot be left without remedies in highly consequential proceedings such as those under PMLA.