01-October-2024-Special-Article

SUPREME COURT RULING ON PMLA AND BAIL: A LANDMARK JUDGMENT

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant ruling that addressed the misuse of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, especially regarding prolonged pretrial detention.

The court criticized the use of the law as a tool to keep the accused in jail without clear timelines for their trial, asserting that such practices violate personal liberty and the principles of justice.

Key Points of the Supreme Court’s Ruling on PMLA and Bail

No Arbitrary Detention:

• The court emphasized that even if there is a prima facie case against an accused, their prolonged detention without a clear timeline for trial is unjust.
• Stringent provisions, particularly Section 45 of PMLA, should not result in arbitrary detention of individuals.

Section 45 of PMLA and Bail:

• Section 45 of the PMLA imposes stringent conditions for granting bail in money laundering cases.
• Two conditions must be met for bail:
• The accused must demonstrate their prima facie innocence.
• The accused must convince the court that they will not commit further offenses while on bail.

Bail Principles Reaffirmed:

• The court reiterated the principle that “bail is the rule, jail is the exception” in India’s criminal law system.
• It warned that the high threshold for bail under PMLA should not lead to an indefinite loss of liberty for the accused.

Judicial Concerns on Delayed Trials:

• The ruling drew attention to the issue of delayed trials, particularly under special laws like PMLA, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS), 1985.
• The court emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of trials to ensure that harsh bail provisions do not lead to extended detentions.

Judicial Authority to Grant Bail:

• The Supreme Court affirmed that stringent bail provisions do not prevent constitutional courts from intervening in cases where trials are unduly delayed.
• In its 2021 judgment in the KA Najeeb case, the court recognized excessive delays in trials as grounds for granting bail in UAPA cases, and this principle was extended to PMLA cases as well.

Impact on Fundamental Rights:

• The court observed that excessive delays in trials can infringe on the fundamental rights of individuals under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
• Prolonged detention without trial, especially when individuals are acquitted after years of imprisonment, highlights the unjust deprivation of liberty.

Potential Claims for Compensation:

• The court suggested that individuals who suffer wrongful imprisonment due to prolonged detention may be entitled to compensation for violations of their rights under Article 21.

Concerns Regarding India’s Bail System

High Proportion of Undertrials:

• Over 75% of India’s prison population consists of undertrials, and prisons are overcrowded at 118% capacity.
• This reflects inefficiencies in the bail system and highlights the need for urgent reform.

Undermines the Principle of Presumption of Innocence:

• The prolonged detention of undertrials undermines the fundamental principle of “presumption of innocence,” where a person is considered innocent until proven guilty.

Lack of Empirical Data:

• There is limited data on undertrials, including their demographics, offenses, bail timelines, and the challenges they face in complying with bail conditions. This lack of evidence hampers reforms in the bail system.

Challenges in Bail Adjudication:

• The power to grant bail lies largely with the discretion of the courts, depending on factors like the severity of the offense, the character of the accused, and the risk of absconding or tampering with evidence.

Bail Compliance Challenges:

• Many undertrials remain in jail despite being granted bail due to difficulties in fulfilling bail conditions, such as furnishing cash bonds, surety bonds, or proof of property ownership.

Flawed Assumptions in the Bail System:

• The bail system assumes that every arrested individual has access to property or connections with property owners, and that financial risks are necessary to ensure the accused’s presence in court.

Supreme Court Judgments on the Bail System

Babu Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1978:

• The court held that bail should generally be granted unless there are significant grounds for believing that the accused will flee or tamper with evidence.

State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, 1978:

• The Supreme Court reiterated that “bail is the rule, jail is the exception,” and that detention should be aimed at ensuring the availability of the accused for trial, not as punishment.

Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharashtra, 2020:

• The court emphasized that bail conditions should not be excessively harsh and should correspond to the intended purpose of ensuring the accused’s presence at trial.

Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, 2022:

• The court called for a balance between stringent bail provisions and the rights of the accused, ensuring that strict conditions do not disproportionately affect individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Way Forward

• Simplification of Bail Conditions: Bail conditions should be simplified to make them accessible to economically disadvantaged individuals. Alternatives such as community service can replace cash and surety bonds.
• Safeguards Against Arbitrary Arrests: The police must justify arrests with clear reasoning, and strict safeguards should be introduced to prevent arbitrary arrests, particularly for vulnerable populations.
• Community-Based Supervision Programs: Community-based programs can serve as alternatives to incarceration, allowing for the monitoring of undertrials through local organizations or social workers instead of relying on bail.
• Reformatory Facilities for Petty Criminals: Petty criminals awaiting trial could be placed in reformatory facilities where they can engage in productive activities like volunteer work.
• Speedy Trials: Speedy trials should be prioritized to address the issue of overcrowded jails. The Supreme Court’s Committee on Prison Reforms, led by Justice (retd.) Amitava Roy, emphasized this approach as a solution.
• Improved Infrastructure: Adequate courtroom infrastructure, including space, furniture, digital facilities, and skilled manpower, can facilitate faster trials and reduce the number of undertrials in jail.
• Clear Legal Provisions: Clearly defined laws help individuals understand their rights and prevent prolonged detention due to legal misunderstandings.

Mains question:

1. “Discuss the recent Supreme Court rulings on the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and their implications for safeguarding personal liberty and reforming India’s bail system.” (150 WORDS)