REIMAGINING BAIL JURISPRUDENCE UNDER THE PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT: CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES AND THE REVERSE BURDEN PARADIGM
REIMAGINING BAIL JURISPRUDENCE UNDER THE PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT: CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES AND THE REVERSE BURDEN PARADIGM Shreyashi Verma, BBA-LL.B., Third Year, Student at Institute of Legal Studies- SRMU, Lucknow. Ahmed Mehdi Khan, LL.B., Third Year, Student at University of Lucknow. Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2025.v03.77 The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) was introduced to prevent complicated financial crimes and to make sure that money gained through illegal activities does not go beyond the law’s reach. Section 45, which is a crucial element of its enforcement, imposes strict conditions for granting bail. It is also known as the ‘twin conditions.’ It effectively shifts the burden of proof onto the accused, meaning the accused has to prove their innocence through evidence and assure the court that if they are released, they won’t be engaged in any additional offence. Although the Supreme Court in the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case confirmed that the conditions in question are constitutional and reasonable when it comes to economic offences. Still, there are ongoing worries about how this provision might impact the rights to a fair trial and the principles of procedural equity. It has led to a significant constitutional debate regarding personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The research methodology includes a detailed analysis of statutory texts, interpretation of parliamentary discussions, and study of landmark judgements from both Indian and comparative jurisdictions. We place special emphasis on the Supreme Court’s decision in Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs. Union of India and Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. Union of India, along with subsequent rulings that demonstrate the judiciary’s progressive view regarding the reverse burden. It appears that the courts have been shifting between strict enforcement and partial constitutional arrangement. However, the larger issue of disproportionate pre-trial custody remains unaddressed. Although the reverse burden was intended to reduce money laundering, its rigid application without proper judicial oversight seems to infringe on fair trial. This article undertakes a doctrinal and jurisprudential analysis of Section 45, uncovering its legislative amendments, judicial responses, and evaluating its alignment with established constitutional norms.