The Supreme Court of India has upheld the order of the Karnataka High Court quashing a money-laundering case against payment gateway Razorpay Software Private Limited, refusing to interfere with the High Court’s decision and dismissing the Special Leave Petitions filed by the Union of India.
In its order dated February 26, 2026, a bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed that it was “not inclined to interfere with the impugned order(s) passed by the High Court,” adding that the Special Leave Petitions stand dismissed accordingly. However, the apex court clarified that the scope of its order is limited to the effects governing the respondent company alone.
The ruling effectively affirms the Karnataka High Court’s decision to quash proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) against the fintech firm, providing a significant relief to Razorpay and drawing attention from the payments and fintech ecosystem.
Case background
The matter stemmed from a challenge by the Union of India against a Karnataka High Court judgment dated March 5, 2024, which had set aside the money-laundering case against Razorpay. The High Court had examined the allegations in the context of the role played by a payment gateway as an intermediary facilitating transactions on its platform.
The Supreme Court, while declining to interfere with the High Court’s ruling, did not expand the relief beyond the respondent company, making it clear that the order should not automatically apply to other entities or similar cases.
Implications for fintech intermediaries
The verdict is being closely watched by fintech companies and payment aggregators, many of which operate as intermediaries between merchants and customers and are subject to stringent compliance requirements under anti-money-laundering laws.
Legal experts say the judgment reinforces the principle that liability under PMLA must be backed by evidence of intent and conscious involvement in the alleged laundering of proceeds of crime, rather than merely procedural lapses.
Amit Maheshwari, Managing Partner at AKM Global, a tax and consulting firm, said the ruling is a notable development in the interpretation of PMLA provisions.
“This judgment is a welcoming move in the evolution of jurisprudence of PMLA. The Supreme Court’s refusal to interfere in the decision of the Karnataka High Court reinforces a fundamental criminal law principle that intent is indispensable under Section 3 of the PMLA without which charge cannot be established,” he said.
Maheshwari added that the apex court’s view clarifies the threshold for prosecuting intermediaries in such cases. “The Supreme Court opined that mere negligence or alleged failure to conduct due diligence cannot be equated with ‘knowingly assisting’ in money laundering. Furthermore, criminal liability cannot be fastened in the absence of prima facie material showing conscious involvement with proceeds of crime,” he noted.
Why this matters
For India’s fast-growing digital payments sector, the judgment could have wider implications for how enforcement agencies approach cases involving payment gateways and intermediaries. The clarification that the order is limited to Razorpay, however, indicates that courts may still examine each case based on its specific facts and evidence.
At a broader level, the ruling adds to the evolving legal interpretation of liability under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, particularly in cases involving technology-driven financial intermediaries operating at scale in India’s digital economy.
Please click here to view the full story on CNBCTV18.