The Aryavarth Express
Agency (New Delhi): The observations by the Supreme Court the on Wednesday , disapproving of enforcement agencies’ practice of delaying proceedings in Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) cases to keep the accused incarcerated for indefinite periods resonate deeply with the court’s commitment to safeguarding personal liberty, which has found expression increasingly in recent times. This stance assumes even greater significance in light of the pending review of the earlier PMLA judgment upholding the broad arrest powers of these agencies.
The bench hearing the case, comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, discussed the impact of prolonged incarceration and delays in PMLA cases. While referring to the Section 45 of the PMLA, they asserted how it shouldn’t prevent courts from granting bail in situations of extended detention. Reference was also made to the judgment in the Manish Sisodia case, where the accused was granted the liberty to apply for bail if there was a delay in the trial.
The courts have consistently championed the right to personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. There are several landmark cases which established the principle of procedural fairness, emphasizing that liberty cannot be curtailed without following established legal procedures. The Supreme Court has declared that the ‘liberty’ under Article 21 encompasses not just physical liberty but also the right to live with dignity.
The PMLA, while aiming to combat money laundering, has been criticized for provisions granting enforcement agencies arbitrary powers, including arrest without a warrant and stringent bail conditions. The 2022 judgment in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary v. Union of India upheld the Act’s constitutionality, but concerns regarding potential misuse of these powers persisted.
The latest observations by the court regarding delaying tactics in PMLA cases directly address these concerns. By disapproving of practices aimed at indefinite incarceration, the court reiterates its commitment to ensuring that PMLA powers are not abused to circumvent the principles of fair trial and speedy justice. This stance aligns perfectly with the court’s pronouncements in cases like Kishor Kumar v. State of Bihar (1973), where it emphasized the right to a speedy trial as an essential facet of personal liberty.
The significance of this development is amplified by the pending review of the 2022 PMLA judgment. By taking a strong stance against delaying tactics, the court sets a precedent for a more nuanced approach to PMLA enforcement. This could pave the way for a more balanced interpretation of the Act, ensuring that it effectively tackles money laundering while safeguarding individual rights.
The Supreme Court has posted the pleas challenging the top court decision upholding the law’s constitutional validity to July. Over 200 petitions have been filed challenging the provisions of the Act. It was argued before the court that the powers of the Enforcement Directorate to arrest, force confessions, and seize property were unbridled.
Perhaps there is no other law that has been abused by the Modi government than the PMLA, which has been used indiscriminately against political adversaries. The abuse has been so widespread that such Instances can be chronicled on a daily basis, the latest in the series being the raid by enforcement agencies against former AIADMK minister C Vijayabaskar, within hours after the BJP walked out of its alliance with the AIADMK. Some 25 premises belonging to the former health minister are being raided as part of two separate money laundering cases.
P Chidambaram, a ‘seasoned’ victim of the law is on record as saying that the ED has now become the super agency that has taken over all the powers of the Serious Fraud Investigation Office, the income tax, the customs authorities, the excise authorities, the GST authorities, and the CBI. The former finance minister and leading Supreme Court advocate says the law has vested arbitrary, untrammelled power upon one investigating agency, which is now more powerful than all the investigating agencies put together.
The Supreme Court’s approach has a wider societal impact. India faces a critical issue of overcrowding in jails, with millions of undertrials languishing due to delays in court proceedings or their inability to afford bail. The court’s disapproval of delaying tactics in PMLA cases must serve as a reminder about the need for broader reforms aimed at expediting trials and addressing the root causes of pre-trial detention. (IPA Service)
By K Raveendran
