Appeals in PMLA cases Lawyer in Supreme Court of India

Appeals in cases instituted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act before the Supreme Court of India arise only after a final judgment or interlocutory order of a Special Court, a Designated Court, or a High Court that disposes of the conviction, acquittal, sentence, or any substantive direction affecting the rights of the accused, and the statutory basis for such appellate jurisdiction is found in the applicable criminal procedure law together with the constitutional power vested in the apex court to entertain appeals on questions of law, jurisdiction, or substantial procedural infirmity. The constitutional provision empowering the Supreme Court to entertain a petition for special leave to appeal, commonly invoked in PMLA matters, imposes a threshold that the petitioner must demonstrate that the impugned order involves a substantial question of law or a grave miscarriage of justice that cannot be adequately redressed by the ordinary appellate route, thereby ensuring that the apex court’s discretionary jurisdiction is exercised sparingly and only where the interests of justice demand a higher judicial scrutiny. In practice, the record that forms the basis of a Supreme Court appeal in a PMLA case must be compiled as a paper-book containing the complete trial proceedings, the judgment, the sentencing order, and all annexures, and the appellant is required to certify that the record is complete, authentic, and free from any material omission, because any defect in the paper-book may be a ground for the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal without reaching the merits. The Supreme Court, unlike a High Court hearing a direct appeal, does not ordinarily re-examine the evidential matrix or re-appreciate witness testimony, and its jurisdiction is confined to determining whether the lower forum erred in the application of legal principles, failed to observe mandatory procedural safeguards, or acted beyond the jurisdiction conferred by the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and the accompanying procedural framework. Consequently, a litigant contemplating an appeal to the Supreme Court must first ascertain that the order sought to be challenged is a final judgment or a specific interlocutory order that falls within the ambit of the appellate jurisdiction, because interlocutory orders that are merely procedural or interlocutory in nature, such as interim bail orders or routine procedural directions, are generally excluded from the Supreme Court’s special leave jurisdiction unless they manifest a substantial violation of statutory rights. The procedural timeline for filing a special leave petition in a PMLA matter is governed by the present procedural framework, which typically mandates that the petition be presented within sixty days from the date of the impugned order, and any delay beyond this period must be justified by a compelling cause, otherwise the Supreme Court may reject the petition on the ground of non-compliance with the limitation. Before the Supreme Court entertains the appeal, the registry will scrutinise the paper-book for completeness, verify that the requisite notice has been served on the respondents, ensure that the petition complies with the prescribed format, and may issue a notice to the respondents to file their counter-affidavit, because procedural defects at the registry stage can be fatal to the petition irrespective of the substantive merits of the alleged error. Finally, the litigant must appreciate that a dismissal of the special leave petition or an adverse order from the Supreme Court does not automatically revive the conviction or sentence, but rather leaves the lower court’s decision intact, thereby underscoring the importance of meticulous preparation, precise articulation of legal questions, and strict adherence to procedural prerequisites to avoid the severe consequence of a final denial of relief at the apex.

Jurisdictional threshold and maintainability of Supreme Court appeals in PMLA matters

To satisfy the basic maintainability requirement before the apex court, the petitioner must be either the person convicted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act or a third party whose property or liberty has been directly and adversely affected by the impugned order, thereby establishing a clear locus standi that the Supreme Court recognises as indispensable for exercising its discretionary jurisdiction. Beyond mere standing, the Supreme Court applies a substantive threshold that obliges the appellant to demonstrate that the challenged order raises a substantial question of law—such as the interpretation of the definition of ‘proceeds of crime’ under the Act—or that it results in a grave miscarriage of justice, for example, by depriving the accused of a fundamental right without providing an opportunity to be heard. In assessing whether the threshold is met, the Court distinguishes a jurisdictional error—where the lower tribunal exceeds the powers expressly conferred by the Prevention of Money Laundering Act or fails to follow mandatory procedural safeguards—from a mere error of law, which may be corrected only if it leads to a manifest injustice that the ordinary appellate route cannot rectify. Interlocutory orders that ordinarily escape direct appeal—such as a denial of bail, an order of attachment of bank accounts, or a direction to freeze assets—may become maintainable before the Supreme Court when they embody a substantial legal issue or when their operation effectively curtails the accused’s liberty or property rights in a manner that cannot be remedied by a routine High Court revision. When the petitioner seeks interim protection—such as a stay of execution of a custodial sentence, a suspension of attachment, or a temporary bail order—the Supreme Court may grant such relief only after a prima facie assessment that the balance of convenience tilts in favour of preserving the status quo pending a final determination of the substantive legal questions, thereby preventing irreversible prejudice to the accused. If the apex court determines that the lower forum committed a jurisdictional lapse, it may either remand the case for a fresh hearing before the Designated Court, modify the impugned order to rectify the procedural defect, or outright set aside the conviction and sentence, each outcome having a direct impact on the accused’s custodial status and the disposition of seized assets. Conversely, a refusal by the Supreme Court to entertain the petition on the ground of non-maintainability leaves the lower court’s order intact, thereby allowing the enforcement of any custodial sentence, the continuation of asset freezes, and the perpetuation of any investigative measures that were lawfully instituted, unless the petitioner subsequently discovers a fresh ground of appeal within the prescribed limitation. Therefore, a meticulous drafting of the petition must articulate with precision the legal question that is either novel or has been inconsistently interpreted across jurisdictions, demonstrate how the lower forum’s action transgressed a mandatory safeguard—such as the requirement of prior notice before attachment—and explain why ordinary appellate remedies would be inadequate to prevent irreversible damage to the accused’s liberty or property. In sum, the jurisdictional threshold and maintainability analysis constitute the decisive gateway to Supreme Court intervention in PMLA matters, and any oversight—whether in establishing standing, framing the substantial question of law, or evidencing a jurisdictional breach—will invariably result in the petition’s dismissal, thereby consigning the accused to the consequences imposed by the lower adjudicating authority.

Certification, compilation, and filing of the Supreme Court paper-book for PMLA appeals

The preparation of the Supreme Court paper-book in a Prevention of Money Laundering Act appeal commences only after the appellant has secured a certified copy of the final judgment, the sentencing order, and every interlocutory order that the appellant alleges to contain a jurisdictional flaw, because the apex court requires a complete documentary foundation before it can entertain any question of law or procedural irregularity. The certified copy of each order must be obtained from the court of origin, bearing the official seal and the signature of the presiding judge, and the appellant must attach an affidavit stating that the copies are true and accurate reproductions of the original entries, thereby creating a statutory safeguard against inadvertent omission or deliberate tampering of the record. In addition to the judgments and orders, the paper-book must incorporate the complete trial transcript, the charge sheet filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the forensic audit reports, the annexures relating to seized assets, and any expert opinions that were relied upon by the Designated Court, because the Supreme Court’s limited jurisdiction to examine only the record obliges the appellant to ensure that every piece of material that could influence the legal question is present and properly indexed. The appellant must then engage a competent practitioner to compile the documents in the sequence prescribed by the Supreme Court Rules, beginning with the petition, followed by the certified copies of the judgment and sentencing order, then the complete trial record, and finally the annexures, each bound securely and numbered consecutively, because any deviation from the mandated order may be construed as a procedural irregularity that could invite a dismissal at the registry stage. Once the paper-book is assembled, the appellant is required to execute a certification affidavit before a notary public, affirming that the compilation contains all documents that were part of the original proceedings, that no page has been omitted or altered, and that the appellant has complied with the prescribed time-limits for filing, thereby providing the Supreme Court with a sworn guarantee of record integrity. The certified paper-book, together with the special leave petition and the accompanying counter-affidavit of the respondents, must be lodged at the Supreme Court registry within the period fixed by the applicable procedural framework, typically sixty days from the date of the impugned order, and any failure to meet this limitation without a satisfactory explanation may result in the petition being struck out as time-barred. Upon receipt, the registry clerk conducts a meticulous scrutiny of the paper-book to verify that the certification affidavit is duly signed, that the seal of the originating court appears on each certified copy, that the pagination is continuous, and that the index matches the actual contents, because any discrepancy discovered at this stage can be raised as a ground for refusal to admit the petition and may compel the appellant to re-file a corrected record. If the registry finds the paper-book satisfactory, it issues a notice of listing to the respondents, thereby obligating them to file a written response within the time prescribed, and the Supreme Court may, at its discretion, grant interim relief such as a stay of execution of the custodial sentence or a suspension of asset attachment pending a full hearing, provided that the appellant demonstrates a real risk of irreparable injury. Conversely, should the registry identify a material omission—such as the absence of the forensic audit report that formed the basis of the asset seizure—or detect a non-compliance with the binding format, it may issue a requisition for clarification, and failure to comply with such requisition within the stipulated period can lead to outright dismissal of the appeal without any substantive consideration of the legal questions raised. When the appeal proceeds to the hearing stage, the Supreme Court judges rely exclusively on the paper-book as the evidentiary substrate, and any argument that depends on documents not present in the certified record will be rejected as inadmissible, thereby underscoring the pivotal role of a flawless compilation in determining whether the appellant obtains relief such as remand for fresh trial, modification of the conviction, or outright quashing of the sentence. Finally, the ultimate consequence of a defective paper-book is not merely procedural but substantive, because a dismissal on record-based grounds leaves the lower court’s conviction and any accompanying custodial or asset-freeze orders intact, whereas a properly certified and filed paper-book that survives registry scrutiny opens the avenue for the Supreme Court to intervene, potentially granting bail, suspending custody, ordering restitution of seized property, or directing a re-examination of the money-laundering allegations, each outcome bearing direct impact on the appellant’s liberty and financial standing.

Procedural routes: filing a Special Leave Petition versus a direct appeal under the applicable provision

When a party seeks to challenge a judgment rendered in a PMLA matter, the first strategic decision concerns whether to invoke the Supreme Court’s discretionary Special Leave Petition mechanism or to rely upon the statutory right of appeal that the criminal procedure law expressly furnishes for certain categories of orders, a choice that fundamentally determines the procedural timetable, the nature of the record to be filed, and the scope of judicial review available at the apex court. The Special Leave Petition route is available only when the appellant can demonstrate that the impugned order raises a substantial question of law or a manifest miscarriage of justice that cannot be adequately remedied by the ordinary appeal, a threshold that the Supreme Court tests by examining the pleadings for a precise articulation of the legal controversy and by requiring the petitioner to show that the lower forum’s decision either exceeded the jurisdiction conferred by the PMLA or ignored a mandatory procedural safeguard, thereby ensuring that the Court’s discretionary jurisdiction is not invoked for routine errors. Conversely, a direct appeal under the applicable provision is permissible only when the statute expressly provides an appeal as of right to the Supreme Court, such as where the order appealed against is a final conviction or sentence pronounced by a Designated Court and the criminal procedure law stipulates that the aggrieved party may file an appeal within a prescribed period, typically measured in days from the date of the order, without the need to satisfy the special leave threshold, thereby granting the appellant a statutory entitlement to be heard. Because the two routes differ fundamentally in the nature of the record, a Special Leave Petition must be accompanied by a paper-book containing the complete trial transcript, the judgment, and all annexures, whereas a direct appeal requires the preparation of an appeal record that includes only the judgment, the sentencing order, and the specific documents that the appellant relies upon to demonstrate the alleged error, a distinction that influences both the time required for compilation and the likelihood that the Supreme Court will entertain the matter. The limitation period applicable to a Special Leave Petition is generally sixty days from the date of the impugned order, subject to a discretionary extension on showing sufficient cause, whereas the limitation for a direct appeal is usually ninety days, and failure to comply with the respective time-bars without obtaining a condonation order results in the petition being struck out as time-barred, a consequence that underscores the importance of precise docket management and early filing. Upon acceptance of either route, the Supreme Court may, at its discretion, grant interim relief such as a stay of execution of the custodial sentence or a suspension of asset attachment, but to obtain such protection the appellant must satisfy the Court that there exists a real risk of irreparable injury, that the balance of convenience favours the status quo, and that the merits of the substantive claim are not foreclosed by the interim order, a test that is applied uniformly irrespective of whether the petition is a Special Leave Petition or a direct appeal. If the Supreme Court finds that the lower forum committed a jurisdictional error or failed to observe a mandatory safeguard, it may either set aside the impugned order, remit the matter for fresh consideration before the Designated Court, or modify the order to the extent necessary to cure the defect, each of which can result in the immediate release of the accused from custody, the restoration of frozen assets, or the issuance of a new direction for investigation, thereby illustrating the practical consequences that flow from a successful appeal irrespective of the procedural route chosen. Conversely, a dismissal of a Special Leave Petition on the ground of non-maintainability or a rejection of a direct appeal for lack of merit leaves the original order untouched, thereby permitting the enforcement of the custodial sentence, the continuation of asset freezes, and the finality of any investigative measures, a result that underscores the high stakes involved in selecting the appropriate procedural avenue and the necessity of rigorous compliance with the procedural prerequisites.

Scope of relief: suspension of sentence, bail, remand and other discretionary orders from the Supreme Court

When an appellant in a Prevention of Money Laundering Act matter approaches the Supreme Court, the relief sought may extend beyond the mere setting aside of a conviction to include the temporary suspension of the operative sentence, the grant of bail pending final determination, the ordering of remand for fresh trial, or any other discretionary direction that the apex court deems necessary to prevent irreparable prejudice. The Supreme Court, exercising its inherent jurisdiction to grant interlocutory relief, first requires the petitioner to demonstrate a prima facie case that the impugned order is either manifestly illegal or suffers from a jurisdictional defect, and simultaneously to establish that the denial of the sought interim measure would cause a loss or injury that could not be remedied by any subsequent order. In order to satisfy the balance-of-convenience test, the appellant must submit a detailed affidavit accompanied by documentary evidence such as the sentencing order, the custody log, and any attachment or freeze notices, thereby enabling the Court to compare the hardship that would be inflicted upon the petitioner with the potential prejudice to the State or the investigating agency if the relief were to be granted. When bail is the relief claimed, the Supreme Court applies the established principle that bail may be granted notwithstanding the seriousness of the alleged offence provided that the petitioner is not a flight risk, that the petitioner is prepared to furnish a personal bond or surety, and that the Court is satisfied that the continuation of custody would defeat the purpose of a fair trial or impair the petitioner’s ability to cooperate with the investigation. If the petitioner seeks suspension of the sentence, the Court may issue an order staying the execution of imprisonment, thereby preserving the status quo until the substantive appeal is decided, and such a stay automatically results in the release of the accused from custodial facilities unless the Court expressly conditions the suspension on the provision of a personal bond or other security. A remand order, whether for fresh trial or for further investigation, is ordinarily predicated on the finding that the lower forum erred in its assessment of evidence or failed to observe a mandatory procedural safeguard, and the Supreme Court, upon granting such remand, typically directs the Designated Court to re-examine the material on the basis of the same record while allowing the petitioner to make fresh submissions on points of law that were previously overlooked. The Court’s discretion to grant any of these interim orders is not absolute; it may refuse relief where the petitioner has not complied with the procedural requirement of serving notice on the respondents, where the petition is defective in its certification of the paper-book, or where the Court is persuaded that the State’s interest in preserving the integrity of the investigation outweighs the alleged hardship to the petitioner. Finally, the practical consequence of a successful application for suspension, bail, or remand is the immediate cessation of any custodial deprivation and the restoration of the petitioner’s liberty, whereas the denial of such relief results in the continuation of imprisonment, the possible forfeiture of assets under attachment orders, and the finality of the lower court’s judgment until such time as a substantive appeal is finally disposed, thereby underscoring the critical importance of meticulous compliance with the procedural prerequisites and the persuasive articulation of the legal tests governing discretionary relief.

Use of investigation defects and evidentiary insufficiency as grounds for Supreme Court interference in PMLA cases

In the context of appeals arising under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the Supreme Court may entertain a petition on the ground that the investigating agency committed a material defect in the collection of evidence or that the evidentiary material placed before the Designated Court was insufficient to sustain a conviction, thereby furnishing a distinct basis for judicial interference beyond ordinary error correction. Such a defect typically surfaces when the statutory requirement of prior notice before attachment of bank accounts, the mandatory preservation of original transaction records, or the observance of the chain-of-custody provisions for seized cash and documents has been ignored, because the failure to comply with these procedural safeguards not only undermines the reliability of the seized assets but also invites the inference that the investigative report was compiled on a compromised evidentiary foundation. The petitioner must therefore identify and annex to the paper-book the specific orders—such as the attachment order, the freeze notice, and the forensic audit report—together with the original charge sheet, the statements of the accused, and any expert opinion that was relied upon, because the Supreme Court’s review is confined to the material that forms part of the certified record and any omission may be fatal to the claim of investigative infirmity. The legal test applied by the apex court requires the petitioner to demonstrate that the alleged defect is not a mere irregularity but a jurisdictional infirmity or a breach of a mandatory provision that materially affected the outcome, and simultaneously to show that the evidentiary material, when viewed in the light of the alleged defect, fails to meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, a dual threshold that filters out trivial complaints and ensures that only substantial miscarriages of justice receive appellate scrutiny. Time-bar considerations remain stringent, as the petition must be presented within the period prescribed by the present procedural framework—generally sixty days from the date of the impugned order—unless the appellant obtains condonation by demonstrating a compelling cause for delay, because a belated filing without such justification is routinely dismissed as time-barred irrespective of the merits of the investigation-defect argument. During the hearing, the bench scrutinises the paper-book to ascertain whether the investigative report contains gaps such as missing transaction logs, unexplained alterations in account statements, or failure to disclose the methodology of tracing the proceeds of crime, and it may also assess whether the prosecution’s case was predicated on conjecture rather than on concrete documentary evidence, thereby allowing the Court to intervene where the evidentiary foundation is demonstrably insufficient. If the Supreme Court is satisfied that the defect or insufficiency is material, it may set aside the conviction, remit the matter to the Designated Court for a fresh trial on the same record, or modify the sentence to the extent necessary to cure the prejudice, and in addition it may concurrently grant bail, stay the execution of imprisonment, or order the release of assets that were attached on the basis of the flawed investigation. Interim protection, such as a stay of execution of the custodial sentence or a suspension of the attachment order, may be granted pending the final determination, provided that the petitioner establishes a real risk of irreparable injury, that the balance of convenience favours maintaining the status quo, and that the State’s interest in preserving the integrity of the investigation does not outweigh the alleged hardship. Conversely, where the Supreme Court finds that the alleged investigation defect is either insubstantial, has been remedied by the lower forum, or fails to meet the dual threshold of jurisdictional infirmity and evidentiary insufficiency, it will dismiss the petition, thereby leaving the conviction, the custodial deprivation, and any asset-freeze orders in force, and the petitioner will be required to serve the sentence unless a separate remedy is pursued on a different ground. Consequently, practitioners advising clients in PMLA matters must meticulously catalogue every procedural lapse, ensure that the forensic audit and chain-of-custody documents are fully incorporated into the certified record, and craft pleadings that precisely articulate how the defect vitiated the evidentiary basis of the conviction, because only a well-substantied claim that satisfies the stringent procedural and substantive tests will survive the registry’s scrutiny and enable the Supreme Court to exercise its limited but potent supervisory jurisdiction.

Legal consequences of dismissal, issuance of notice, and their impact on pending proceedings in PMLA matters

When the Supreme Court, after examining the certified paper-book and the accompanying affidavits, determines that the Special Leave Petition or direct appeal in a PMLA matter fails to satisfy the maintainability threshold, the Court ordinarily dismisses the petition, thereby leaving the impugned order of the Designated Court or High Court in full force and effect, which means that any custodial sentence, attachment of bank accounts, or freeze of assets continues unabated unless a separate stay order has been previously granted. A dismissal rendered without prejudice, which the apex court sometimes indicates in its order, permits the aggrieved party to institute a fresh petition on a different ground within the period prescribed by the prevailing procedural framework, yet the fresh filing must still overcome the same jurisdictional and substantive hurdles, and any delay beyond the statutory limitation may be fatal to the new petition, thereby reinforcing the necessity of strict compliance with time-bars. Conversely, when the registry issues a formal notice to the respondents after accepting the petition for listing, the notice serves as a statutory trigger that obligates the respondents to file a counter-affidavit within the time prescribed, and failure to do so may be construed as a deemed admission of the factual matrix presented by the petitioner, which can materially influence the bench’s assessment of interim relief and may lead to an automatic stay of execution of the sentence pending final determination. If, however, the Supreme Court after issuing notice decides to grant a stay of execution of the custodial order, the stay operates prospectively to suspend any physical detention of the accused, but it does not automatically release the accused from the legal consequences of the conviction, such as the continuation of forfeiture proceedings or the maintenance of a charge sheet, which remain pending until the substantive appeal is finally disposed. The issuance of a notice of listing, which is published in the Supreme Court’s official bulletin, also has the practical effect of freezing the operative status of any execution of attachment orders issued by the Enforcement Directorate, because the lower authorities are bound by the principle of judicial restraint to await the apex court’s final pronouncement before proceeding with the sale or disposal of seized assets, thereby preserving the status quo and preventing irreversible dissipation of property. When the Supreme Court dismisses a petition on the ground of non-compliance with the certification of the paper-book, the dismissal not only extinguishes the appellate remedy but also signals to the lower courts that the record is deemed defective, which may compel the Designated Court to re-issue a fresh certified copy of the judgment and sentencing order before any further enforcement action can be lawfully undertaken. In circumstances where the Supreme Court, after issuing notice, declines to grant any interim relief, the pending proceedings in the lower forum continue unabated, and the State may proceed with the execution of the sentence, the sale of attached property, and the filing of appeal-against-order applications, thereby underscoring that the mere issuance of a notice does not, by itself, confer any protective shield on the petitioner. Should the Supreme Court, after hearing, dismiss the petition on substantive grounds such as lack of a substantial question of law, the dismissal operates as a definitive affirmation of the lower court’s findings, and any pending applications for bail, remission, or commutation before the High Court must be pursued afresh, because the apex court’s dismissal does not automatically translate into a stay of those collateral proceedings. In contrast, a dismissal accompanied by an order directing the parties to file a joint statement of facts within a specified period can lead to a consensual settlement of the pending asset-freeze issues, and the joint statement, once filed, becomes part of the record that the Supreme Court may rely upon in any subsequent interlocutory application, thereby influencing the trajectory of the remaining enforcement actions. Therefore, litigants must appreciate that the legal consequences of a dismissal, the procedural ramifications of a notice, and the interplay between the apex court’s interim orders and the ongoing enforcement machinery collectively determine whether the accused remains in custody, whether assets stay attached, and whether any further remedial petition can be entertained, making meticulous adherence to procedural mandates and timely filing of requisite documents indispensable for preserving the prospect of relief.

Interim protection: stay of execution, preservation of assets and other temporary orders pending Supreme Court adjudication

When an appeal against a conviction, sentence, attachment or freeze order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is presented before the Supreme Court, the appellant frequently petitions for interim protection so that the operative consequences of the impugned order are suspended until the apex court renders a final determination on the merits of the appeal. Such interim relief must be articulated either within the Special Leave Petition itself or through a separate application filed under the Supreme Court Rules, and it must be supported by a sworn affidavit accompanied by the sentencing order, the attachment or freeze notice, and any other operative order whose execution the appellant alleges would cause irreparable loss. The Court applies a well-settled three-pronged test—establishment of a prima facie case, demonstration of a balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner, and proof of a real risk of irreparable injury—to decide whether to grant any of the temporary orders sought. To satisfy the prima facie requirement, the petitioner must demonstrate that the order sought to be stayed is immediately enforceable, that its execution would result in deprivation of liberty or loss of property that cannot be restored, and that the order is not merely a procedural direction without substantive effect. The balance of convenience prong requires the appellant to set out, with documentary evidence such as the custodial log, the asset-freeze notice and any valuation report, the comparative hardship that would befall the petitioner if the order were allowed to operate against the hardship that the State would suffer by suspending the enforcement action. The irreparable injury element obliges the petitioner to prove that the loss of personal liberty or the dissipation, depreciation or alienation of seized assets would be permanent or would substantially diminish the value such that monetary compensation after final judgment would be inadequate to place the petitioner in the position he would have occupied absent the interim order. The registry, before listing the matter, scrutinises the paper-book to confirm that the operative orders cited are part of the certified record, that the affidavit is duly sworn, that the supporting documents are annexed in the prescribed sequence, and that any procedural defect such as a missing annexure is rectified, otherwise the interim application may be rejected without prejudice to the substantive appeal. If the Court is persuaded that the petitioner has satisfied the three-pronged test, it may issue a stay of execution of the custodial sentence, a suspension of the attachment or freeze order, a direction that the seized property be kept in escrow pending final determination, or a temporary bail order conditioned on personal bond, each of which remains operative until the Court either lifts it or disposes of the appeal on its merits. Conversely, where the Court declines to grant interim protection, the custodial sentence proceeds to execution, the attached assets may be liquidated or transferred in accordance with the Enforcement Directorate’s directions, and the petitioner must continue to serve the sentence while pursuing the substantive appeal, which does not automatically reverse the interim consequences already effected. Should the Supreme Court ultimately set aside the impugned order, it may direct restitution of the seized property, release of the accused from custody, and, where appropriate, award compensation for any loss suffered during the period of interim deprivation, but such remedial orders are distinct from the temporary stay and are contingent upon the final adjudication of the substantive issues raised in the appeal.