Supreme Court Upholds Statutory Bail Exception for Women, Criticizes ED’s Misinterpretation of PMLA

(Source – Indian Express, Section – Explained- Page No. – 11)

Topic: GS2 – Polity
Context
  • The Supreme Court criticized the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for opposing bail for Shashi Bala, a woman accused in a money laundering case, despite the exception for women under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). 

 

Analysis of the news:

Everything You Need To Know About Supreme Court Upholds Statutory Bail Exception For Women

 

Bail Provisions Under PMLA

  • Section 45 of the PMLA imposes stringent conditions for bail, requiring the accused to prove no prima facie case against them. 
  • However, an exception exists for women, minors, and the sick or infirm, allowing for bail at the discretion of the Special Court. 
  • This exception aligns with similar exemptions under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Legal Precedents on Women’s Bail Exception

  • Delhi High Court (2023): In Preeti Chandra v. Directorate of Enforcement, the court rejected attempts to restrict the exception for women based on socio-economic status or education level, affirming the broad application of the law.
  • K Kavitha Case (2024): A trial court denied bail, citing the accused’s education and societal position. However, the Supreme Court later overruled this decision.

These cases highlight judicial inconsistency in interpreting the exception for women under PMLA.

Case Analysis: Shashi Bala

  • Shashi Bala, accused of assisting the Shine City Group in laundering ₹36 lakh, was arrested in 2023. 
  • The Allahabad High Court denied her bail, arguing she was not a “vulnerable” woman under the PMLA exception. 
  • The Supreme Court rejected the ED’s argument, emphasizing that the law does not differentiate among women based on social or economic factors.

Judicial Observations

  • Justice Oka criticized the ED’s argument, stating, “We will not tolerate conduct…contrary to statute.” 
  • The SC underscored that statutory exceptions must be uniformly applied without arbitrary classifications, ensuring the rule of law prevails.

Conclusion

  • The Shashi Bala case underscores the need for consistent judicial interpretation of PMLA provisions. 
  • The Supreme Court’s stance reinforces the importance of statutory safeguards for women, emphasizing the principle of equal access to justice.
                          The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act (PMLA)
  • It was enacted by Parliament of India under Article 253 of Constitution in 2002 to prevent money laundering and provide for the confiscation of property derived from or involved in money laundering.
  • PMLA and the Rules notified there under came into force with effect from 2005, and it was further amended in 2009 and in 2012.
  • Director, FIU-IND and Director (Enforcement) have been conferred with exclusive and concurrent powers under relevant sections of the Act to implement the provisions of the Act.
  • The offence under the PMLA mainly involves money laundering obtained through criminal activities (e.g., drug trafficking, terrorism, corruption).

 

PYQ: With reference to India, consider the following statements: (2021) 
  1. When a prisoner makes out a sufficient case, parole cannot be denied to such prisoner because it becomes a matter of his/her right. 
  2. State Governments have their own Prisoners Release on Parole Rules. 

Which of the statements given above is/are correct? 

(a) 1 only  

(b) 2 only  

(c) Both 1 and 2 

(d) Neither I nor 2 

Ans: (b)

Practice Question:  Examine the role of statutory exceptions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in ensuring equitable justice. Discuss the challenges posed by inconsistent judicial interpretations, citing recent cases. (250 Words /15 marks)

Similar Posts

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments