| Introduction: Contextual Introduction Body: Implications of Courts’s stance on rights of accused under PMLA & balance between money laundering and individual rights Conclusion: Way forward |
The Supreme Court’s series of decisions on the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) reflects a nuanced approach to balancing stringent measures against money laundering with the protection of individual rights.
Key Implications of Supreme Court’s Stance
- Presumption of Innocence: The Court has consistently upheld the principle of presumption of innocence, emphasizing that an accused is innocent until proven guilty. This principle is a cornerstone of the Indian criminal justice system. For eg, in Manish Sisodia’s case (2024) & K Kavitha’s case (2024), the court has relaxed bail conditions as listed under PMLA.
- Right to Fair Trial: The Court has reinforced the accused’s right to a fair trial, including the right to legal representation, the right to confront witnesses, and the right to be informed of the charges against them.
- Role of Enforcement Agencies: The Court has closely monitored the actions of enforcement agencies like the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to prevent any abuse of power or violations of individual rights. It has emphasized the need for these agencies to act within the bounds of the law.
- Enforcement of Arrest and Detention Provisions: The Court has scrutinized the PMLA’s provisions related to arrest and detention, ensuring that they are not used arbitrarily or excessively as stated in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2023), It has emphasized the importance of adherence to due process and the need for clear and cogent reasons for arrest or detention.
Balancing Act: Stringent Measures vs. Individual Rights
- Nature of the crime: The severity of the money laundering offense can influence the extent to which individual rights can be limited.
- Strength of the evidence: The Court has emphasized the need for a strong prima facie case before resorting to stringent measures like attachment or detention. in Prem Prakash v. Union of India (2024), the Court ruled that confessions made by an individual in custody, especially under coercive conditions, could not be considered voluntary and would violate the right against self-incrimination.
- Proportionality: The Court has ensured that any restrictions on individual rights are proportionate to the nature of the offense and the threat posed to the public interest.
- Due process: The Court has consistently upheld the principles of due process, ensuring that the accused are treated fairly throughout the proceedings.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s interventions in the application of the PMLA underscore the delicate balance between stringent anti-money laundering measures and the protection of individual rights as can be seen when the Supreme Court reversed many of its stances which it had earlier drawn in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, case related to arrest powers, bail provisions for undertrials recording of statement from accused during investigation.
