By K Raveendran
The Supreme Court of India is finds itself at the threshold of a unique opportunity to create history when a bench headed by chief justice D Y Chandrachud takes up next month a clutch of petitions seeking a review of the 2022 verdict concerning the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Seldom does the apex court overturn a decision during a review, but the PMLA review appears to be pregnant with new possibilities.
The bench considering the petitions for review has postponed the hearing to October 16 and 17 citing the need for adequate preparations. The acknowledgement of the need for thorough consideration of the underlying issues has to be seen in the context of recent Supreme Court rulings that increasingly align with a broader judicial trend towards ensuring that the legal process adheres to principles of fairness and due process and prevent abuse of the law as a tool in the hands of the ruling party to force political adversaries into submission.
The closest that any recent review came to overturning a prior decision was in the 2018 when a bench of the then CJI Dipak Misra, Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud JJ modified the earlier guidelines issued by 2-judge bench framing new guidelines to prevent the misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Section 498A criminalizes dowry harassment. The court had earlier held that no arrests of the husband or his family members could be made in cases of complaints of dowry harassment under the penal provision without prior verification of the charges against them. The decision was widely criticised and debated in civil society groups and women’s rights organisations.
The other important review candidates include the Supreme Court’s highly contentious decision do away with the bar on grant of anticipatory bails in cases of atrocities under the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989. The review has been necessitated by the Centre approaching the apex court seeking review of its decision in view of the public outcry.
A most sensitive pending review relates Sabarimala case in which the Supreme Court upheld the right of women of productive ages to enter the hill shrine, which had hitherto been banned by tradition. The decision has been challenged in a series of petitions, which are still pending after the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi refused to show any urgency to hear.
The PMLA review is about the Supreme Court verdict of 2022, which upheld various provisions of the PMLA, sparking debates over its implications for civil liberties and the enforcement of anti-money laundering laws. The decision faced criticism from several legal experts and civil rights advocates, who argue that it potentially undermines fundamental rights and due process.
The Supreme Court has been increasingly expressing its displeasure over the abuse of enforcement laws to settle political scores. Legal experts discern a shift in its approach on the part of the highest court, which is reflected in several recent rulings that emphasize the need to prevent the abuse of power by government agencies. In particular, the court has expressed concern over the growing trend of using stringent laws like the PMLA to target individuals based on political motivations. This judicial stance could lead to more rigorous safeguards being introduced to curb the arbitrary use of laws that are intended to maintain financial integrity but risk being misused for political gain.
The strikingly low conviction rates in cases handled by the enforcement agencies suggest not only inefficiencies within the judicial system but also a troubling trend of the misuse of power by the ruling party to target political adversaries. It is as though the Enforcement Directorate has transformed itself from a financial investigation body into a tool for political retribution, raising serious concerns about the integrity of democratic processes.
When state apparatuses are weaponized against political opponents, it sets a dangerous precedent. As the Supreme Court prepares to take up the PMLA review, there is growing anticipation regarding how the judiciary will navigate the balance between enforcing economic laws and protecting civil liberties. (IPA Service)
