The Supreme Court on Wednesday criticized the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for making submissions contrary to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), emphasizing that it would not tolerate legal arguments that defy statutory law. This stern admonishment came as the court heard arguments concerning the applicability of Section 45’s stringent bail conditions to women, which specifically exempts them.
Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, presiding over the bench, expressed their disapproval following the Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta’s admission of a previous miscommunication. On behalf of the ED, Mehta apologized for the earlier stance that the provision did not exempt women from the harsh bail conditions, admitting the error stemmed from internal miscommunication.
In December 2024, the court had already corrected the Additional Solicitor General, who argued that the stringent bail conditions should apply equally to women. The Justices reiterated that the legal text clearly provides an exemption for women from the twin conditions for bail—establishing that such a misinterpretation by government counsel was unacceptable.
Justice Oka firmly rejected the “11th-hour” plea to file a reply on the matter, criticizing the government’s legal team for not being aware of basic legal provisions and for attempting to introduce arguments late in the judicial process. The court was particularly critical of the government’s approach, which assumed ignorance of the law on the part of the bench.
In a significant decision, the bench granted bail to the accused, Shashi Bala, who has been in custody since November 2023. Bala, a government school teacher, has been implicated in a money laundering case linked to the Shine City Group of Companies. The ED alleges that she was instrumental in facilitating illegal financial transactions for the group, duping investors with fraudulent schemes.
Despite the Allahabad High Court’s previous denial of bail based on the gravity of her charges and her purported role in the financial crimes, the Supreme Court chose to grant bail due to the prolonged expected duration of her trial and the yet-to-begin evidence recording process, which involves 67 witnesses.
This ruling not only underscores the judiciary’s stance on adhering strictly to legislative provisions but also highlights the challenges in prosecuting complex financial crimes without undermining statutory rights.
