Article summary
Abstract
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) represents one of India’s
most stringent economic-crime statutes and has generated sustained constitutional
debate concerning the balance between national financial security and individual
liberty. This paper critically examines the constitutional validity of the PMLA through
the lens of its historical development, colonial legal antecedents, statutory structure,
and evolving Supreme Court jurisprudence. It analyses key provisions relating to
arrest, attachment of property, reverse burden of proof, bail, and compulsory
examination, with particular reference to Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 20(3), 21, and 22 of the
Constitution of India. The study further evaluates major judicial developments from
Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India and Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of
India to subsequent decisions that have sought to strengthen procedural safeguards
governing arrest, bail, attachment, disclosure of grounds, and access to documents.
The paper argues that although recent judicial interventions have moderated some of
the harsher consequences of the PMLA, the underlying statutory framework continues
to raise significant concerns regarding due process, personal liberty, fair trial, and
proportionality. It therefore advocates legislative reform aimed at reconciling effective
anti-money-laundering enforcement with constitutional protections and transforming
the PMLA into a rights-compliant framework consistent with democratic rule of law.