The Supreme Court of India has long upheld the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, recent judgments indicate a significant shift in the Court’s approach to cases under stringent statutes like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). This shift aims to address concerns about pre-trial detention and ensure that arrests are made within the bounds of constitutional safeguards.
Evolving Jurisprudence on Bail and Arrest
Historically, the principle of “bail is the rule, jail is the exception” has guided the Indian criminal justice system. Yet, recent decisions in PMLA and UAPA cases have challenged this norm, with courts often denying bail or delaying proceedings under these special statutes. Statutory provisions such as Section 45 of the PMLA and Section 43D(5) of the UAPA have exacerbated these concerns, setting high thresholds for bail that have sometimes led to prolonged detention.
- Course Correction in 2023
In 2023, the Supreme Court began recalibrating its approach. In Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, the Court invalidated an arrest made by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) because the grounds for arrest were not provided in writing, as required by Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 19(1) of the PMLA. This decision emphasized that written grounds must be provided to the accused, reinforcing the right to a fair process.
Following this, in Prabir Purkayastha v. Union of India, the Supreme Court ordered the release of NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha, finding that the grounds of his arrest were inadequately communicated. This decision underscored the necessity of clearly distinguishing between “reasons” and “grounds” for arrest.
- Questions on Necessity of Arrest
The Court further explored the necessity of arrest under the PMLA in the case involving Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. The Court debated whether “necessity of arrest” should be read into Section 19 of the PMLA, highlighting concerns about arbitrary arrests and the timing of such actions. While the case did not result in a substantive ruling on this issue, it set the stage for further scrutiny of arrest practices under special statutes.
- Impact on Pre-Trial Detention and Speedy Trial
The Supreme Court’s decisions have also addressed the impact of prolonged pre-trial detention. In Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, the Court granted bail to a man who had been in custody for over four years without a trial. The Court emphasized that the right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and a prosecuting agency’s failure to expedite trial cannot justify denying bail.
Similarly, in the case of Manish Sisodia, the Court granted bail after acknowledging the lengthy pre-trial detention and the likely delay in the trial process. The ruling in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India further reinforced the principle that bail should be granted in accordance with the law, even under stringent statutes like UAPA.
- Recent Developments and Pro-Liberty Trends
Recent judgments have continued to support individual liberties. In Tarsem Lal v. ED, the Court ruled that the ED cannot arrest an accused once a special court has taken cognizance of the complaint unless applying directly to the court. In Frank Vitus v. NCB, the Court struck down invasive bail conditions, such as constant electronic tracking, which violated privacy rights.
The Supreme Court also criticized undue delays in the judicial process in Parvinder Singh Khurana v. ED, stressing that bail orders should not be stayed without strong justification and emphasizing the importance of timely judicial review of bail conditions.
Concluding Remarks
The Supreme Court’s recent decisions reflect a growing concern for safeguarding personal liberties amidst the harsh provisions of PMLA and UAPA. By reinforcing the need for proper procedural compliance and addressing the impact of long pre-trial detention, these rulings aim to restore balance in the criminal justice system. While challenges remain, these judgments provide a renewed hope for a fairer approach to bail and arrest under special statutes, aligning judicial practice with constitutional principles and ensuring that personal liberty is not unduly compromised.