Retiring Supreme Court Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul disclosed that then-CJI D.Y. Chandrachud asked him to adopt a 'middle path' during deliberations on a PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) case where the bench was divided. Justice Kaul declined, choosing to write a separate opinion. The disclosure highlights rare judicial candour about internal bench dynamics and underscores the continuing tension between PMLA's stringent bail and arrest provisions and constitutional liberty guarantees.

The PMLA, enacted in 2002 and significantly amended in 2019, grants the Enforcement Directorate sweeping powers: arrest without a warrant in certain circumstances, a reversed burden of proof for bail under Section 45, and the ability to attach property before conviction. The Supreme Court's 2022 Vijay Madanlal Choudhary judgment upheld most of these provisions, but the bench was not entirely unanimous in its reasoning.

Justice Kaul's disclosure matters for two reasons. First, it reveals that even within the majority, judges debated how far to push back against PMLA's expansive enforcement architecture. A 'middle path' in this context likely meant softening the judgment's endorsement of ED powers without striking down provisions outright — a compromise Justice Kaul apparently refused. Second, it illustrates the difference between a concurring opinion and a dissent: a concurrence agrees with the outcome but differs on reasoning, while a dissent rejects the outcome entirely.

For CLAT PG, this story is a gateway into PMLA's statutory framework: Section 3 (offence of money laundering), Section 45 (twin conditions for bail), Section 50 (ED's power to summon and record statements), and the constitutional challenge to each under Articles 14, 19, and 21. The examiner tests whether aspirants can distinguish the statute's provisions from the Court's interpretive gloss on them.