Supreme Court Slams Centre, ED for Misusing PMLA in Bail Cases, Grants Relief to Accused Woman

The Supreme Court rebuked the Centre and ED for arguing contrary to PMLA provisions in opposing bail pleas. The Court criticized the government’s intent to deny bail under all circumstances and granted bail to a woman accused, highlighting statutory exceptions under Section 45 of the PMLA.

Supreme Court Slams Centre, ED for Misusing PMLA in Bail Cases, Grants Relief to Accused Woman

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday criticized the Central Government and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for advancing arguments contrary to the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The Court noted that such submissions reflect an intent to deny bail under any circumstances, in defiance of statutory exceptions.


Key Observations by the Supreme Court

  • The bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan remarked:
    “This is a clear intention on the part of the government to see that under hook or crook, bail is denied, and therefore such submissions are made.”
  • The Court strongly objected to arguments made contrary to the law, emphasizing:
    “If Union of India is to make submissions contrary to its own statute, we will not tolerate such conduct. We will never appreciate such submissions made by Union of India.”
  • Criticizing the lack of basic legal understanding by government counsel, the Court stated:
    “If people who appear for Union of India do not know basic provisions of law, why should they appear in the matter?”

Background of the Case

  • The Court was hearing a bail plea in a money laundering case involving an accused woman.
  • In December 2024, the Court had taken strong exception to the ED’s argument that the stringent bail conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA applied even to women, sick individuals, infirm persons, and those under 16 years of age.
  • The Court noted that this argument directly contradicted the proviso to Section 45, which provides exceptions for these categories.

Government’s Stance and Apology

  • Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union, conceded that the proviso to Section 45 indeed applies to women in PMLA cases.
  • Mehta attributed the earlier erroneous argument to a “communication gap” but faced strong criticism from the bench, which called the explanation “utterly frivolous.”
  • Mehta offered an apology, stating:
    “Sometimes out of fear, we do not communicate properly.”
    • However, Justice Oka dismissed the explanation, noting that the opportunity to withdraw the submission had already been given.
  • In response to Mehta’s remarks that government counsel sometimes “shiver” in court, Justice Oka retorted:
    “We don’t believe in that.”

Court’s Decision on the Bail Plea

  • The Court proceeded to hear the bail plea on merits and granted bail to the accused woman, observing:
    “There is no possibility of trial concluding in the near future.”
  • The Special PMLA Court was directed to release the accused on bail.

Judicial Commentary

  • Justice Oka emphasized the importance of sending a signal to the government regarding its approach to court proceedings:
    “Someday we have to give signals that if such an approach is taken... signal has to be given.”
  • Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra added a lighter note, remarking that the government counsel’s trembling was “only because of the cold.”

Significance of the Judgment

  • The Court reaffirmed the need for government lawyers to argue in alignment with the statute to uphold the sanctity of judicial proceedings.
  • It highlighted the importance of statutory exceptions in bail cases under PMLA and discouraged frivolous or contradictory arguments.

Source: Bar and Bench

Supreme Court Dismisses Compassionate Appointment Appeal, Calls for Hand-to-Mouth Conditions
Legal Wires
Supreme Court Dismisses Compassionate Appointment Appeal, Calls for Hand-to-Mouth Conditions
Supreme Court flags conflicting judgments on whether compassionate appointment claims should be based on the scheme prevailing at the time of death or when the application is considered.
Kerala High Court Upholds Constitutionality of Brain Death Certification, Dismisses PIL Against THOTA Provisions
Legal Wires
Kerala High Court Upholds Constitutionality of Brain Death Certification, Dismisses PIL Against THOTA Provisions
The Kerala High Court dismisses PIL challenging brain death certification and upholds the constitutional validity of THOTA, emphasizing Parliament’s authority to define medical standards for brain death.
Supreme Court Upholds Father’s Custody Rights, Overrules High Court’s Ruling in Child Custody Battle
Legal Wires
Supreme Court Upholds Father’s Custody Rights, Overrules High Court’s Ruling in Child Custody Battle
The Supreme Court ruled that a father’s claim to custody is superior to that of his child’s maternal grandparents, emphasizing the father as the natural guardian, overturning a High Court verdict.
Or
Powered by Lit Law
New Chat
Sources
No Sources Available
Ask AI