In Brief
This landmark judgment upholds the constitutional validity of core provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Supreme Court rejected petitioners' challenges to provisions relating to bail (twin conditions in Section 45), burden of proof (Section 24), arrest authority (Section 19), search and seizure powers (Sections 17-18), attachment of property (Section 5), and recording of statements (Section 50). The Court held that the PMLA, being a special statute aligned with international anti-money laundering standards (FATF recommendations and UN Conventions), justifies stringent procedural departures from ordinary criminal law. The twin bail conditions were upheld as curing defects noted in the earlier Nikesh Tarachand Shah judgment. The Court emphasized that money-laundering is an economic offence of grave national consequence, warranting special treatment distinct from ordinary crimes. Authorities under the PMLA were held not to be police officers; hence Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act (protecting against confessional statements) does not bar statements recorded under Section 50.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.