Jaipur courts: Three limited to Rajasthan HC transfers under PMLA

The Central Government has replaced Rajasthan’s designated court entries under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), listing five courts and limiting three Jaipur courts to cases transferred by the Rajasthan High Court. The Ministry of Finance’s Department of Revenue issued the amendment through notification S.O. 5757(E), dated 23 October 2026, after consultation with the High Court’s Chief Justice.

The notification invokes Section 43(1) of the PMLA, the provision concerning the designation of Special Courts. It replaces serial number 22 and the associated Rajasthan entries in an earlier notification rather than amending the Act itself. The change concerns which courts hear cases, not the definition of money laundering or the punishment for it.

Jaipur courts have different assignments

Under the ministry’s replacement table, the Court of Special Judge, (CBI) No. 3, Jaipur, is assigned the districts within the jurisdiction of the Rajasthan High Court’s Jaipur Bench. Jurisdiction here means the geographical area covered by the court’s assignment.

The Court of Special Judge, (CBI), Jodhpur, is assigned the districts within the jurisdiction of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur. The notification describes both territorial assignments by reference to the High Court’s jurisdiction; it does not enumerate individual districts.

The other Jaipur entries carry a narrower condition. For the Court of Special Judge, (CBI) No. 2, No. 4 and No. 5, the ministry uses the same wording: “Will hear transferred cases only as transferred by the Rajasthan High Court.”

That restriction distinguishes these three courts from the geographically assigned Jaipur and Jodhpur courts. The table does not give the three transfer-only courts a separate group of districts or an unrestricted statewide assignment. Their role under these entries depends on cases being transferred by the High Court.

The notification does not itself identify any case for transfer. Nor does it specify how many proceedings might move, provide a timetable for redistribution or explain how the High Court will select cases for the three courts. It therefore establishes the court assignments without documenting any case-specific movement.

Why territorial jurisdiction matters

The distinction between a court’s designated area and the location of an alleged money-laundering activity has featured in Supreme Court proceedings. In KA Rauf Sherif v. Directorate of Enforcement & Ors., decided on 10 April 2023, Justices V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal considered a request to transfer a PMLA prosecution from Lucknow to Ernakulam.

That judgment provides background on territorial jurisdiction; it did not concern the Rajasthan notification. Sherif sought transfer under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, read with Section 65 of the PMLA. His grounds included an argument that the alleged criminal activities occurred in Kerala, that most accused and witnesses were from Kerala or southern India, and that he had been remanded to custody in Ernakulam.

The Directorate of Enforcement opposed the request. As recorded in the judgment, it argued that the territorial-jurisdiction issue was governed by the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement and objected to the timing of the transfer petition after witness examination had begun.

The Supreme Court explained that the location of the underlying criminal case did not, by itself, determine where the money-laundering complaint could be heard. An underlying, or scheduled, offence is an offence listed in the PMLA’s Schedule to which the alleged criminal proceeds relate.

In paragraph 10 of the Sherif judgment, the court said territorial jurisdiction had to be assessed by reference to the place or places where activities constituting the money-laundering offence under Section 3 occurred. Its reasoning covered activities involving proceeds of crime such as acquisition, possession, concealment and use, which could take place in different locations.

The bench rejected the argument that the Lucknow Special Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. It also rejected the other grounds advanced for moving the proceedings and dismissed the transfer petition. The judgment illustrates why identifying a designated court and deciding the proper venue for a particular prosecution are related but distinct questions.

Amendment history and limits of the document

The English text of the finance ministry’s notification identifies the principal notification as S.O. 372(E), dated 5 February 2016. Its explanatory note says the most recent preceding amendment was S.O. 5082(E), dated 16 September 2026. The new instrument was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, on 23 October 2026.

There is an internal date discrepancy in the bilingual document: the Hindi opening passage refers to the principal notification as dated 5 February 2026, while the English opening passage and the notes in both languages give 5 February 2016.

The replacement table sets out the revised Rajasthan entries but does not reproduce the entries it supersedes. It consequently does not establish, on its own, which individual court assignments are newly added or altered compared with the previous table.

The ministry gives no explanation of caseload pressures or other reasons for the revision beyond recording consultation with the Chief Justice. It also specifies no separate future commencement date. For the three Jaipur courts restricted to transferred matters, the notification names the Rajasthan High Court as the authority whose transfers determine which cases they will hear.