The strong observations made by a division bench of the Supreme Court against the practice of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to keep filing supplementary chargesheets to prevent persons charged under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), from getting bail opens a window of hope to those who have been fighting the draconian law and its misuse for years. “Trial has to begin when you arrest an accused,” the bench told the Central agency, reminding it that the continued incarceration of an accused for 18 months without trial “is bothering us”.
As the court rightly pointed out now, as well as on several other occasions, the right to bail flows from Article 21 of the Constitution which guarantees right to life and liberty, and the unjustifiable preconditions for bail under PMLA runs against the spirit of the Constitution and democratic jurisprudence. The judges told ED that the law does not bar a court from granting bail to an accused if there is prolonged incarceration and delay in trial. In fact, the court had in 2017 found the twin conditions of bail under Section 45 of the PMLA — that the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail— violative of the Constitution and struck them down.
The PMLA was introduced as part of a global efforts to fight the scourge of black money, and courts have been less lenient towards people accused of white collar crimes. The law gives the ED wide powers which are not enjoyed by several other investigation agencies. However, the experience in recent years has clearly demonstrated that both the ED and the law have been used more to dump Opposition politicians in jails with little chance of bail rather than hunt down black money. Courts across the country had to remind the ED that it could not go on expeditions in search of crime. It’s time courts stood their ground and stopped the abuse of PMLA.
