The ruling marks a decisive shift in enforcement jurisprudence — striking a balance between the State’s interest in securing alleged proceeds of crime and the fundamental right of legitimate enterprises to pursue economic activity.

The Hon’ble Court, in doing so, also reaffirmed its position taken in Revati Cements and Anr v. Union of India, where substitution of attached property with fixed deposits was permitted. In extending this rationale to immovable property, the Court has ensured that valuable economic assets are not indefinitely frozen, particularly in sectors like real estate where delays can have significant downstream effects.

M3M’s application sought to substitute the provisionally attached land with an alternate parcel of equal or greater value, to enable development activity to proceed — while maintaining complete compliance with the PMLA’s safeguards.

Legal experts have hailed the ruling as a landmark in the evolution of the statute’s interpretation.

Mr. Parimal Tripathi, Senior Advocate and Head of Sutradhar Associates, stated:

“This is a progressive order and will positively influence other ongoing matters of a similar nature. Notably, the substitution mechanism does not dilute enforcement power under PMLA. Rather, it strengthens procedural fairness and reflects a maturing jurisprudence that understands the real-world implications of criminal law on business continuity.”

Mr. Rohit Sinha, a leading voice in white-collar litigation, added:

“This judgment repositions the enforcement narrative. Not all enforcement action must paralyze business. Companies like M3M have demonstrated that it’s possible to offer win-win solutions — upholding the law while enabling economic development.”

⸻

A Judicious Balance Between Enforcement and Economic Interest

The Supreme Court’s order signals a broader judicial principle: that law enforcement must not become a roadblock to national economic activity, particularly when alternate remedies — like value substitution — are available. The decision prevents indefinite stagnation of valuable assets, allowing the previously attached land parcel to return to the stream of development, generating employment, civic infrastructure, and investor confidence.

⸻

The Second Landmark for M3M: Building on Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India

This relief follows the earlier Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India judgment, in which the Supreme Court laid down strong procedural safeguards for arrest under the PMLA. With both decisions now forming a critical judicial arc, M3M has emerged at the forefront of a new, rights-conscious interpretation of the PMLA — one that balances compliance with economic necessity.

⸻

A Boost for Real Estate, A Path Forward for Developers

The implications of this judgment go far beyond M3M. For the real estate industry — often subjected to sweeping enforcement actions — the order reaffirms that law-abiding developers cannot be indefinitely paralysed through provisional attachments. The judgment encourages a more pragmatic enforcement environment, empowering developers to propose structured solutions that protect public interest without stalling economic progress.

⸻

The Supreme Court’s ruling in the M3M matter is thus more than case-specific relief. It is a precedent-setting evolution in Indian regulatory jurisprudence, one that will help chart the future course of PMLA enforcement and legal strategy across sectors.

The Court also clarified that the 2017 Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act permits maternity leave for women with more than two children, with the primary limitation being the duration of leave, not the number of children. It acknowledged the importance of population control policies but stressed that these should be balanced with constitutional obligations to protect women’s rights and dignity. The verdict underscored that population control and reproductive rights are compatible goals that must be approached humanely and rationally, and it rejected the high court’s division bench decision, reaffirming that women’s reproductive rights and benefits should be upheld without discrimination.

The Apex court in its notification said that the office of the court will remain closed on holidays and on second and fourth Saturday of the month. The new rules will come into force from 1st August.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and justices S Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia asked Setalvad to surrender her passport with trial court till the time the Gujarat High Court decides her regular bail plea.

The top court also asked Setalvad to cooperate with the probe agency in the investigation of the case of alleged fabrication of evidence to frame people in riots cases.

Appellant, a lady has been in custody since June 25. The offences alleged against her pertain to year 2002 and going by assertions, at best the concerned documents date to 2012. The investigating machinery has had the advantage of her custodial interrogation of seven days followed by judicial custody, the bench said while granting interim bail to Setalvad.

Referring to the sequence of events of the case, the bench said the high court, while issuing the notice to the state government on the regular bail petition, should have considered the plea for grant of interim bail to her.

The essential ingredient of custodial interrogation being completed, the matter of interim bail should have been heard,” it said, adding Setalvad was in police custody for seven days. The bench said since the high court is seized of the matter, it was not considering the regular bail petition.

We are only on during the pendency of such application, should the custody of appellant be insisted upon or be granted interim bail. We grant Teesta Setalvad interim bail, it said.

The top court had on Thursday wanted to know the reason for the delayed listing of Setalvad’s bail plea by the Gujarat High Court, wondering whether “this lady has been made an exception”.

It wondered why the high court listed the bail prayer for hearing on September 19, six weeks after it sent a notice to the state government seeking a response to her application.

Referring to the case against Setalvad, which was registered days after the June 24 verdict of the apex court in the Zakia Jafri case, the bench said, Today as the case stands, the FIR is nothing but whatever has happened in the (supreme) court (judgement).

The bench was apparently referring to the verdict by the apex court bench led by Justice (since retired) AM Khanwilkar who had blamed the petitioners in the Zakia Zafri case for “keeping the pot boiling” and showing the “audacity” to question the integrity of the Special Investigation Team, and observed that “all those involved in such abuse of process need to be in the dock and proceeded with in accordance with law”.

Setalvad was arrested on June 25, a day after the verdict was pronounced.

The Gujarat High Court had on August 3 issued a notice to the state government on the bail plea of Setalvad and fixed the matter for hearing on September 19.

The 2002 Gujarat riots were triggered by the torching of a coach of Sabarmati Express by a mob near Godhra station on February 27 that year.

Fifty-nine passengers, mostly Hindu Karsevaks returning from Ayodhya, were charred to death in the incident.

An Ahmedabad sessions court had on July 30 rejected the bail applications of Setalvad and former Gujarat Director General of Police R B Sreekumar in the case, saying their release will send a message to wrongdoers that a person can level allegations with impunity and get away with it.

Setalvad and Sreekumar have been accused of fabricating evidence to frame “innocent people” in the post-Godhra riots cases.

The matter came up for hearing before a bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari.

At the outset, the bench asked petitioner Mamta Sharma whether she has served the copy of the plea to the counsel representing the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE).

When the petitioner said she will serve the copy of the petition to the parties, the bench observed, You do it. We will have it on Monday (May 31) .

We permit the counsel for the petitioner to serve advance copy of the petition to respondents namely the central agency, counsel for the CBSE and the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination, the bench said, adding, List on Monday (May 31) .

The petition has arrayed the Centre, the CBSE and the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination as respondents in the matter.

During the hearing conducted through video-conferencing, Justice Maheshwari observed that the CBSE is likely to take a call on this issue on June 1.

The counsel representing the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination told the bench that since the apex court is hearing the matter, the high courts should not deal with it.

Nothing will happen till Monday, the bench said.

When the petitioner told the bench that the top court can take suo motu cognisance on the issue, the bench said, Be optimistic. May be by Monday some resolution will be there. Let us have it on Monday .

The petition has sought directions to the Centre, the CBSE and the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination to cancel the Class 12 examinations and devise an objective methodology to declare the result within a specific timeframe.

Earlier on Sunday, a high-level meeting was held to decide the fate of 12th exam and during the meeting the CBSE had suggested two different options of conducting the exams which included converting existing schools to exam centres.

According to reports, the Union Education Ministry is open to the idea of allowing the students to appear for 12th exam  from their own school. A final decision in this regard is expected to be taken on June 1 when the Union Education Minister Ramesh Pokhriyal Nishank would announce about the CBSE Class 12 Board Exam 2021.

The observation of the bench asking protesting farmers bodies to cooperate assume significance in view of reports that they would not go to any apex court-appointed panel for resolution of disputes and wanted repeal of laws only.

Before pronouncing the order, the bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde commenced the hearing and urged the farmers’ unions to cooperate and go before the committee to be appointed by it to resolve the dispute.

“We are concerned about protecting the lives and proerty of citizens of India and we want to solve the problem,” said the bench which also comprised Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian.

In the proceedings conducted through video conferencing, it said no power can prevent us from making committee to resolve the impasse on new farm laws.

It reiterated the apex court has powers to suspend the legislation in order to solve the problem.

The government had told the court that the laws “were not hurriedly made”, that they were the result of two decades of deliberations.

In eight rounds of talks with farmers’ unions over the past month, the government had firmly ruled out withdrawing the laws but had offered to make amendments.

Noting that “no solution was in sight”, the Supreme Court said it was trying to solve the problem in the best way and had the power to suspend the laws.

“These are matters of life and death. We are concerned with laws. We are concerned with lives and property of people affected by the agitation. We are trying to solve the problem in the best way. One of the powers we have is to suspend the legislation,” the Chief Justice said.

“We want to solve the problem and that’s why we are making the committee,” he added.

The names suggested by the Supreme Court include agricultural economist Ashok Gulati, Anil Ghanwat (Shetkari Sanghatana), Bhupinder Singh Mann (former Rajya Sabha) and Pramod Joshi (International Food Policy Research Institute). All four are known to support the farm laws.

Covid rules must be strict :SC

The Supreme Court has said that the rules imposed should be strictly followed until a vaccine is introduced. While in a affidavit canter govt blamed Delhi govt for not taking appropriate action to curb pandemic

masIt is time to strictly implement the policy, guidelines and standard operating procedures to contain the surge of coronavirus cases in the country, the Supreme Court stated.

The apex court also pulled up the states and said that they have to rise to the occasion and above politics to deal with covid.

The court’s remarks came as the Centre informed the court that 10 states contribute to nearly 77 per cent of the total COVID-19 caseload in the country.

Meanwhile India has reported 41,322 fresh COVID-19 cases till today, 4% lower than on Friday, taking its overall number to 93.51 lakh cases and 1,36,200 deaths, Union Health Ministry data shows. These numbers come even as a vaccine to fight back the virus seemed tantalisingly close. The states of Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala were the most affected ones, with deaths ranging from 23 to 85 in the past 24 hours.

Delhi  recorded 5,482 new cases and 98 deaths. The city’s overall number of cases now stands at 5,56,744, with 8,909 deaths at a rate of 1.6%. Up to 64,455 tests were conducted across the city in the past 24 hours

The Supreme Court asked  for a “regulatory mechanism” for tv channels and said government is silent on the action taken against TV channels in a case linked to media reporting on the Tablighi Jamaat .

“The government is silent on the action that has been taken and the power it has to regulate the TV channels. If there is no regulatory mechanism, create one or else we will hand it over to outside agency. Regulation cannot be left to the NBSA (News Broadcasters Standards Authority)” Chief Justice SA Bobde said . He pointed that the top court is not satisfied with the centre’s affidavit which was shared in the top court . the top court berated the government for having a junior officer file what it called an “extremely offensive and brazen” response.

“First, you did not file a proper affidavit and then you filed an affidavit which did not deal with the two important questions. This way it cannot be done Mr Mehta… we are not satisfied with your reply. We asked you to tell about what action taken has been taken. But not a whisper in your affidavit,” the bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, underlining that the government did not deal with the Cable TV Network Act in its response as it highlighted that “applicability of the Act in controlling media has a great consequence in this country”.

“Tell us what’s the present legal regime you have… you haven’t told anything,” the top court said. The Solicitor General told the court that a fresh affidavit will be filed.

The centre has defended the media in this case and said in its response to the Supreme Court that there was “no instance of bad reporting”.

The Supreme Court last month pulled up the centre on its affidavit and said it “must tell us instances of bad reporting” and what action had been taken. “Freedom of speech is one of the most abused freedoms in recent times,” Chief Justice SA Bobde had said during the hearing last month

A three-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra said Bhushan was found to have committed “serious” contempt, and the hearing for punishment in the case will be held on August 20.

The punishment for contempt of court can go up to six months in jail, or fine, or both.

The top court on August 5 had reserved its verdict in the matter after Bhushan defended his two alleged contemptuous tweets saying they were against the judges regarding their conduct in their personal capacity and they did not obstruct administration of justice.

On July 22, the top court had issued a show cause notice to Bhushan after initiating the criminal contempt against him for his two tweets.

Senior advocate Dushyant Dave had submitted that Bhushan was only airing bona fide criticism against the judiciary without any malice.

Replying to the contempt notice in a detailed affidavit, Bhushan had stated that expression of bona fide opinion about the Court cannot amount to contempt.He submitted that there were several shortcomings in the functioning of the judiciary, which warranted criticism.

Bhusnhan said that his comment on CJI SA Bobde for his photo in which he was seated on a Harley Davidson motorcycle was meant to underline his angusih at the non-physical functioning of the Supreme Court for over three months, “as a result of which fundamental rights of citizens, such as those in detention, those destitute and poor, and others facing serious and urgent grievances were not being addressed or taken up for redressal”.

The bench, also including Justices B R Gavai and Krishna Murari, prima facie, observed that his tweets “have brought disrepute to the administration of justice and are capable of undermining the dignity and authority of the Supreme Court in general and the office of the Chief Justice of India in particular, in the eyes of general public”.

Although SC declined to entertain a request for a probe into a 2008 pact between the Congress and the Communist Party of China. The top court asked the petitioner to approach the high court with his request.

“We find that there is something which appears to be, what might be called, unheard of and absurd in law. You are saying that China has entered into an agreement with a political party and not the government. How can a political party enter into an agreement with China,” observed Chief Justice SA Bobde during the hearing.

The petitioner’s lawyer Mahesh Jethmalani argued that the agreement needs to be brought in public domain because there were “sinister motives” and the issue involved national security. However, he withdrew the case when the Supreme Court asked why he did not go to the high court.

The petitioners Shashank Shekhar Jha and journalist Savio Rodrigues wanted a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or National Investigation Agency (NIA) into the agreement.

The case filed against the Congress party and its leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi also wanted the court to direct the details of the agreement to be made public.

“Every relief which you are seeking, can be granted by the high court. Secondly, high court is a proper court. Thirdly, we will have the advantage of high court order also,” said the Supreme Court bench which also included Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian.

In the past, the 2008 pact between the Congress and China’s ruling Communist Party has been used by the BJP to deflect the opposition’s questions about the India-China faceoff in June that left 20 Indian soldiers dead.

On Friday, BJP chief JP Nadda seized the court’s observations to attack the Congress.

The 2008 Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the then ruling Congress and the Communist Party of China to for a mechanism that would help regular high-level exchanges between them. The deal was signed during party chief Sonia Gandhi’s visit to Beijing with her family for the Olympics inaugural ceremony.