GUWAHATI: The Supreme Court has strongly disapproved of using the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) “as a tool” to prolong detention of
an accused. A bench ruled that constitutional courts will not allow indefinite pretrial detention under the anti-money laundering law.
Also Read: Uttar Pradesh: Class 2 Boy ‘Sacrificed’ For School’s Prosperity, 5 Arrested
While granting bail to former Tamil Nadu minister V Senthil Balaji, arrested in June 2023 on money-laundering charges, the court flagged the abuse of the money laundering law by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) by detaining the accused in prison without trial for an unreasonably long time.
The bench acknowledged that there was a prima facie case against Balaji, but the prolonged detention without a foreseeable end to the trial weighed heavily in favour of his release. “The constitutional courts cannot allow provisions like Section 45(1)(ii) to become instruments in the hands of the ED (Enforcement Directorate) to continue incarceration for a long time when there is no possibility of the trial concluding within a reasonable time,” a bench of justices AS Oka and AG Masih declared. Under PMLA, Section 45 prescribes a high threshold requiring courts to conclude that the accused is not guilty of the offence and is not likely to commit the offence while on bail.
“These stringent provisions regarding the grant of bail, such as Section 45(1)(iii) of the PMLA, cannot become a tool which can be used to incarcerate the accused without trial for an unreasonably long time,” held the bench, underscoring that stringent of PMLA provisions must not result in an indefinite loss of personal liberty. It asserted “bail is the rule, and jail is the exception” as a well-¬settled principle of India’s criminal jurisprudence.
Thursday’s judgment, penned by justice Oka, reflected growing judicial concern that the statute could be weaponised in a way that violates fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. This critique followed recent judgments that underscored the importance of personal liberty, including bail as a constitutional right, even in cases involving severe statutory restrictions.