New Delhi(ABC Live): In 2022, the Supreme Court upheld the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). Although this expanded government power, the decision triggered a review due to questions about due process. This report compares judicial opinions, the constitutional framework, and the implications of the ongoing review petition.

What Is the PMLA?

The PMLA empowers the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to investigate and prosecute financial crimes involving proceeds of crime. While the law plays a crucial role in India’s anti-corruption framework, its sweeping powers have raised constitutional and legal concerns.

The 2022 Ruling: Wide Powers, Narrow Rights

A three-judge bench led by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar upheld core PMLA provisions in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India.

Major Points:

• Section 45 twin bail conditions were restored.

• The Court held that ED officers are not police officers, limiting CrPC protections.

• Statements under Section 50 were considered admissible in court.

• Amendments passed as Money Bills were not invalidated, though they remain under scrutiny in Roger Mathew v. South Indian Bank.

The 2018 Judgment: Protecting Liberty

In Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India (2018), the Court struck down the twin bail conditions as unconstitutional.

• The ruling upheld the right to bail as fundamental under Article 21.

• It reinforced equality before the law under Article 14.

• The judgment warned against disproportionate punishment and unchecked investigative power.

The Review Petition: Reopening the Debate

In August 2022, Karti Chidambaram and others filed a review petition against the 2022 ruling. A new bench, led by the Chief Justice, agreed to hear the case.

Legal Questions Under Review:

• Whether Section 45’s twin bail conditions violate Articles 14 and 21.

• Whether Section 50 statements violate Article 20(3), which bars self-incrimination.

• Whether the Money Bill amendments were constitutionally valid under Article 110.

• Whether vague definitions under Section 3 allow for the misuse of investigative powers.

The Puttaswamy Framework

In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Court laid down the proportionality test for laws that infringe on fundamental rights. This test demands that a law:

1. Has a legitimate aim,

2. Is necessary and proportionate,

3. Uses the least restrictive means.

This doctrine now forms the foundation for testing the constitutional validity of PMLA provisions.

Mind Map of Judges in PMLA Cases

This map visualises judicial involvement across PMLA rulings, highlighting areas of agreement and divergence.

Judicial Opinion Matrix

Key Judges and Judicial Approach

• Justice A.M. Khanwilkar: Enforcement-first; broad reading of PMLA powers.

• Justice Dinesh Maheshwari & Justice C.T. Ravikumar: Balanced view; examining liberty concerns.

• Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (prior cases): Liberty and due process champion.

• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) emphasised minimal restriction on rights through proportionality.

What It Means for Stakeholders

Law Enforcement

ED retains wide authority. However, if the Court tightens protections, investigators may need to revise methods.

Accused Individuals

There is hope for stronger procedural protections, especially around bail and self-incrimination.

Legislators

The use of the Money Bill route to amend criminal laws may no longer be viable. Proper parliamentary procedure may become mandatory.

Conclusion

India’s constitutional courts now face a decisive test: balancing national security with civil liberties. As the PMLA review unfolds, its outcome could reshape India’s financial crime laws—and restore trust in rule-of-law governance.

Also, Read

Justice Surya Kant Pitches India as Future Arbitral Power