Hriday Shah
On 15th January 2025, the Supreme Court criticized the Central Government and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for presenting arguments opposing bail petitions of accused individuals that contradicted provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The Court remarked that this approach reflected the government’s view that anyone arrested under the PMLA should be denied bail in all circumstances.
The Court questioned the counsel representing the Union of India if they knew the basic provisions of the law and pointed out that the submissions made by the Union of India were contrary to their own statute.
The Accused had moved a bail plea in a money laundering case. In December 2024, the Supreme Court strongly objected to the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) claim that the stringent bail conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) also applied to women, minors, and individuals who are sick or infirm. The Court noted that the ED’s position appeared to contradict the PMLA, as the proviso to Section 45 explicitly provides exceptions for these groups.
The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) and Solicitor General (SG) appeared for the Union of the India and submitted that Section 45 of PMLA did not apply to women. But the Court rejected this contention and said that the argument was frivolous. The Bench gave the Union of India an opportunity to withdraw the submissions made. The counsel also apologized for the mistakes made.
The Court then heard the bail plea on merits and granted bail to the woman accused.