The Supreme Court has recently addressed the issue of wealthy individuals potentially bypassing the standard judicial process. During a hearing, a division bench, including Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, expressed disapproval of what they termed a "new kind of litigation" where affluent accused individuals directly challenge the validity of the laws under which they are being prosecuted.

This observation came during the hearing of a plea by Gautam Khaitan, a Delhi-based lawyer implicated in the ₹3,600 crore VVIP chopper scandal. Khaitan's counsel sought to challenge the constitutional validity of Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The court firmly stated that wealthy individuals must undergo trial like any other citizen. When the bench declined to independently consider the plea, Khaitan's legal representative requested that it be included with a series of existing petitions seeking a review of the Supreme Court's 2022 decision on the PMLA, which upheld various provisions of the Act.

The Supreme Court's stance underscores the principle that all individuals, regardless of their economic status, are subject to the same legal processes. Chief Justice Kant emphasized that the wealthy cannot circumvent the established tiers of the court system. This declaration reinforces the judiciary's commitment to impartiality and equal treatment under the law.

This issue raises concerns about the potential for wealthy individuals to use their resources to gain an unfair advantage in the legal system. While everyone has the right to legal representation and to challenge the laws they are accused of violating, the Supreme Court's observation suggests a concern that some wealthy individuals may be attempting to use their resources to bypass the normal legal procedures.

Some studies suggest that the Supreme Court's decisions are increasingly tilted toward the interests of the rich, potentially contributing to rising economic inequality. These studies indicate that wealthy parties may have an advantage before the justices. However, other analysis suggests that such studies adopt overly simplistic conceptions of what constitutes a "pro-rich" or "pro-poor" decision.

The Supreme Court's recent stance reaffirms the fundamental principle of equality before the law. It sends a clear message that wealth should not be a shield against due process or a means to circumvent the legal system. The court's decision highlights the importance of maintaining a fair and impartial judicial system where all individuals are subject to the same rules and procedures.