The Supreme Court on Wednesday posed tough questions to the Enforcement Directorate (ED), scrutinizing whether the agency’s refusal to provide the accused with documents seized during a money laundering probe violates the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
A bench comprising Justice AS Oka, Justice A Amanullah, and Justice AG Masih was hearing an appeal related to the supply of documents in a money laundering case. The case, Sarla Gupta vs. ED (2022), centres on whether the ED can deny the accused access to crucial documents it relies on in a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case during the pre-trial stage.
The PMLA has been at the centre of several high-profile cases, with prominent politicians like Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren, AAP leader Manish Sisodia, and BRS leader K Kavitha being arrested under the law.
During the hearing, the court questioned the ED’s stance, asking if denying the accused access to documents on technical grounds is justified. “Why can’t everything be transparent?” the NDTV quoted Justice Amanullah as asking, highlighting the need for openness in legal proceedings.
ALSO READ: ‘Liberty of the individual is always the rule’: Supreme Court reiterates bail rule
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the ED, argued that the accused can request documents if they are aware of their existence, but cannot demand a broad inquiry based solely on assumptions. The court, however, countered by questioning whether such an approach would infringe upon the right to life and liberty guaranteed by the Constitution.
Justice Oka emphasized the evolving nature of justice, noting, “Times are changing. Both us and advocates on the other side, we have an objective to do justice. Are we going to be so rigid that the person is facing prosecution but we go and say that the documents are protected? Will this be justice?”
The court also observed that, in contemporary times, scanning and sharing thousands of pages of documents is a matter of minutes, questioning why the accused should be denied access if it aids in seeking bail or dismissal of the case. “Liberty of the individual is always the rule and deprivation, by procedure established by law, the exception,” the court stated.
ALSO READ: ‘Mother of two’: BRS leader K Kavitha gets bail in Delhi excise policy case
The PMLA has repeatedly faced scrutiny, especially after the arrests of several high-profile opposition leaders by central agencies. In a related judgment last month, while granting bail to Prem Prakash, allegedly an aide of Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren, the court affirmed, “Even in PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act), bail is a rule and jail the exception.”
The bench referred to Section 45 of the PMLA, which outlines the twin conditions for bail: there must be prima facie satisfaction that the accused has not committed the offense, and that they are not likely to commit any offense while on bail.
The court has reserved its judgment on the matter, leaving open significant questions about the balance between transparency in legal proceedings and the protection of sensitive documents in money laundering cases.
