The Supreme Court's stance on Prolonged Incarceration under the PMLA: A Landmark Ruling
On a significant day in the history of Indian judiciary, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India delivered a pivotal judgment concerning the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the rights of accused individuals under the Indian law. The case mainly revolves around the questions concerning the fundamental right to a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It has been stressed out in ruling the necessity of balancing legislative provisions aimed at curbing serious offenses, such as money laundering, with the constitutional guarantees of personal liberty.
The issue in the case revolves around the incarceration of the appellant, who had been detained since last 15 months without the commencement of trial. The Supreme Court examined the implications of this delay in light of the PMLA's stringent provisions. It has been emphasized by the court that PMLA is designed in such a manner so as to combat the serious threats to the nation’s financial integrity. Its application should not result in an unjustified denial of liberty to the accused which is protected by the Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
It has been highlighted by the court that even if prima facie the case exists and a large amount of cash tuning over to Rs.1.34 crore has been recovered from the bank account of the appellant, this can’t be the reason for a continued detention of the appellant. Even if the claims of the appellant regarding his income as a MLA and agricultural income are not backed up by any substantial evidence, this can’t be the reason for dismissing the need for a speedy trial. Also, as many as 2000 accused and over 600 witnesses are to be examined in the scheduled offences related with this case, it is inevitable to start the trial in the near future. It has been observed by the court that even under optimal conditions, the trial could extend beyond three to four years. Such a delay seems unacceptable, mainly when viewed against the backdrop of the fundamental right to a speedy trial. It has been observed by the court that when the trial of the complaint under PMLA is likely to prolong beyond reasonable limits, the Constitutional Courts will have to consider exercising their powers to grant bail. The sole reason is that Section 45(1) (ii) does not confer power on the State to detain an accused for an unreasonably long time, especially when there is no possibility of trial concluding within a reasonable time.
The supreme court in various judgments has stressed the significance of the principle “bail is the rule and jail is the exception,” a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence that has often been overshadowed by stringent provisions in special statutes like the PMLA. It has also been stressed by the court that these stringent provisions should not become a tool for incarcerating the individuals for an indefinite period even before the commencement of the trial.
The judgment also drew upon previous rulings, including the landmark case of K.A. Najeeb ((2021) 3 SCC 713.), which reinforced the ability of constitutional courts to grant bail despite statutory restrictions if prolonged incarceration violated fundamental rights. The Court’s reasoning underscored that while the legislative intent behind the PMLA is to combat money laundering, this intent cannot override the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. In the backdrop of these considerations, the Supreme Court granted the bail to appellant (V. Sethil Balaji) subject to certain conditions which includes furnishing substantial bail bonds, regular attendance at Enforcement Directorate’s office and a prohibition on contacting witnesses.
Through this ruling, a precedent has been set for future cases under the PMLA and similar statutes. It will serve as a reminder to the prosecuting agencies that while dealing with financial crimes, there must be a balanced against the fundamental rights of accused individuals. The Court’s decision emphasizes the need for timely trials, highlighting that a fair justice system should not be a mere procedural formality but a substantive right afforded to all individuals. Additionally, this judgment calls for the measures to be taken to assess how the provisions of special statutes are applied in practice. It signals to law enforcement and judicial authorities the necessity of expediting trials for offenses that carry severe penalties, thereby aligning the legal process with constitutional mandates.
Author: Robin Singh is a recent graduate from NLU, Assam. As a graduate National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam, he is a keen interest in writing insightful articles on legal topics, striving to bridge the gap between complex legal concepts and accessible understanding.