Explained: Supreme Court overrides its own 2017 ruling to justify ‘drastic’ PMLA provision for bail | Explained News,The Indian Express
In upholding the reverse burden of proof condition for grant of bail, the Court also overruled its own order of November 2017 that had declared the bail criteria unconstitutional.
Making clear that the State has a compelling interest in imposing stringent bail conditions for economic offences, the Supreme Court Wednesday upheld the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, including its stringent bail conditions that impose a reverse burden of proof on the accused.
“…by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that there is no compelling State interest in providing stringent conditions of bail for the offence of money-laundering,” the Court said.
In upholding the reverse burden of proof condition for grant of bail, the Court also overruled its own order of November 2017 that had declared the bail criteria unconstitutional.
In Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs Union of India (2017), the two-judge bench of Justices Rohinton Nariman and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, had declared the ‘twin test’ of bail under PMLA as unconstitutional since it was manifestly arbitrary.
“We must not forget that Section 45 is a drastic provision which turns on its head the presumption of innocence which is fundamental to a person accused of any offence.
Rating: 5