The Supreme Court, on Thursday, expressed its concern over the misuse of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) provisions by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to unduly prolong incarceration. The court emphasized that constitutional courts must ensure that these laws do not become tools for extended detention without trial.
During the proceedings, a bench consisting of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih highlighted the importance of safeguarding the constitutional rights of the accused, particularly under section 45(1)(ii) of the PMLA, which should not be interpreted to permit unreasonable detention durations. The justices pointed out that the reasonable length of a trial should consider factors such as the potential minimum and maximum sentences.
The observations came while granting bail to former Tamil Nadu minister and DMK leader Senthil Balaji in a money laundering case. The Supreme Court noted the undue delays in trial proceedings and reiterated the legal maxim that “bail is the rule, and jail is the exception.
The Court also discussed the stringent conditions imposed by the PMLA for granting bail, stating that these should not be used to unjustly imprison accused individuals for long periods. It referred to its prior judgment in the KA Najeeb case, emphasizing that constitutional courts have the authority to override statutory provisions on grounds of constitutional rights violations if they determine that a trial cannot conclude within a reasonable time.
Moreover, the apex court highlighted its responsibility to intervene through its powers under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution when faced with prolonged trial processes that infringe on an individual’s right under Article 21 of the Constitution. It cautioned that in cases where delays can be attributed significantly to the accused, the courts may choose not to exercise such powers.
The judgment also touched upon the broader implications of long incarcerations followed by acquittals, where the accused have not engaged in witness tampering or benefitted from flawed investigations. It suggested that such circumstances could potentially violate the fundamental rights of the accused, warranting considerations for compensation due to the loss of crucial years of life.
