New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday reprimanded the Enforcement Directorate in the matter of documents seized during the money laundering investigation. The Supreme Court bench asked the Enforcement Directorate whether the refusal of the agency to give the documents seized during the money laundering investigation to the accused is not a violation of their fundamental right to life and personal liberty?

The PMLA came up during the pre-trial stage while hearing an appeal related to supply of documents in a money laundering case. The Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) has come under the spotlight in several high-profile cases after top politicians, including Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, his Jharkhand counterpart Hemant Soren, AAP leader Manish Sisodia and BRS leader K Kavitha, were arrested under the law.

Refusal to provide documents on technical grounds

According to Bar and Bench, while hearing the case, the court asked whether the accused can be denied documents on mere technical grounds? Justice Amanullah asked why can't everything be transparent?

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the ED, replied, "If the accused knows that the documents are there, he can ask, but if he does not know and has only a hunch, he cannot get it investigated."

How will the documents be trusted?

The court then asked whether this would not violate Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and liberty. Also, in a PMLA case, you can get thousands of documents, but you rely on only 50 of them. The accused cannot remember every document. Then he can ask to give whatever document has been recovered from my house.

The court said- this is a matter of minutes

On this question of the court, the government lawyer said that the accused has a list of documents and unless it is "necessary" and "appropriate", he cannot ask for them. Suppose he applies for thousands of pages of documents, then what to do? On this the bench said that it is a matter of minutes, it can be easily scanned.

How can you be so harsh?

Justice Oka said that times are changing. Our aim is to do justice. Will we be so harsh that the person is facing prosecution but we go and say that the documents are safe? Will this be justice? There are many heinous cases in which bail is granted, but nowadays people are not getting bail in magistrate cases. Times are changing. Can we be so harsh? The court said that if an accused is dependent on documents for bail or dismissal of the case, then he has the right to ask for the documents.

The lawyer said- this is not the right

Solicitor General SV Raju opposed it. No, there is no such right... He can request the court to look into it. Suppose there is no such document and it is clearly a case of conviction and he only wants to delay the trial, then there cannot be such a right. After this the court has reserved the decision in the case.

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception

It is worth noting that the PMLA has repeatedly come under scrutiny after several high-profile opposition leaders were arrested by central agencies under the anti-corruption law. While granting bail to Prem Prakash, an alleged aide of Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren, in a money laundering case last month, the court said that relying on the Manish Sisodia judgment, we have said that even in PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act), bail is a rule and jail is an exception.

conditions for bail are met

The bench cited Section 45 of the PMLA which mentions twin conditions for bail - prima facie satisfaction that the accused has not committed the offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The court said Section 45 only states that the conditions for grant of bail must be fulfilled.