'Won't Tolerate Union Of India Making Submissions Against Law' : Supreme Court Pulls Up ED Over Argument Against PMLA

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (January 15) said that it would not tolerate legal submissions made on behalf of the Union of India which are contrary to the law.The Court made this harsh remark while disapproving of the argument made by the Enforcement Directorate that the proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act will not apply to a woman."We will not tolerate conduct on the part of Union of India to make submissions contrary to statute," a bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed. Earlier (December 20, 2024), the Court had pulled up the Additional Solicitor General who argued that the stringent bail conditions (Section 45 PMLA) are applicable to a woman as well. The Court had then pointed out that the proviso to Section 45 clearly exempted women from the twin conditions for bail.Today, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, who appeared in the matter, offered an apology at the outset for the earlier submission made on behalf of the ED. While admitting that the exemption will apply to a woman, SG Mehta said that the previous submission happened due to "some confusion due to miscommunication.""No question of miscommunication. We will never appreciate such submissions by the Union of India," Justice Oka said. Repeating that he was tendering an apology, SG sought time, stating that a reply has been filed but has not come on record. He pointed out that that the accused-woman was the kingpin of criminal activities and was not entitled to bail merely on the ground of being a woman.Justice Oka, without appreciating the "11th hour" filing of a reply, said: "This is a clear intention on part of Union of India that by hook or by crook bail is to be denied. Therefore, such submissions are made. If people who appear for the Union of India do not know basic provisions of law why should they appear in the matter? And to file counter at the 11th hour? This shows that this is final that a person who is arrested under PMLA has to be denied bail under any circumstance."When the SG said that the ASG has also accepted the legal position that the exception will apply to a woman, Justice Oka said:"If government counsels who appear before the court are to proceed on the footing that the court is not aware about basic provisions and make such admissions, what do we do? How do we conduct the proceedings? We accept that we don't know the entire Law but sometimes we do know few provisions of law."Ultimately, the bench granted bail to the accused, considering that she has been under incarceration since November 2023 and that there was no likelihood of an early completion of trial in the near future as the recording of evidence has not commenced and there are 67 witnesses to be examined.Accused Shashi Bala, a government schoolteacher, has been accused of aiding the Shine City Group of Companies in laundering proceeds of crime. According to the ED's allegations, she acted as a confidant to the company's director, Rasheed Naseem, and facilitated illegal transactions by duping investors through fraudulent schemes. The Allahabad High Court had earlier rejected her bail application, noting the gravity of the charges and her alleged involvement in concealing and utilizing proceeds of crime. Thus, she approached the Supreme Court in the present petition.Case no. – Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 16260/2024Case Title – Shashi Bala @ Shashi Bala Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement Click Here To Read/Download Order

'Won't Tolerate Union Of India Making Submissions Against Law' : Supreme Court Pulls Up ED Over Argument Against PMLA

Amisha Shrivastava

"If people who appear for the Union of India do not know basic provisions of law why should they appear in the matter?," Supreme Court asked.

Tags