SUPREME COURT’S ROLE IN UPHOLDING LIBERTY AND JUSTICE

Syllabus:

GS-2:Government Policies and Interventions, Statutory Bodies

GS-3: Money Laundering

Focus:

The Supreme Court of India granted bail to former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, highlighting the judiciary’s role in protecting individual liberties amidst concerns of misuse of stringent penal laws and prolonged detention without trial.

SUPREME COURT’S ROLE IN UPHOLDING LIBERTY AND JUSTICE - UPSCsource:lawstreetjournal

Understanding the Supreme Court as Custodian of Individual Liberties:

  • The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail to Manish Sisodia underscores its role as a protector of individual liberties.
  • The Court reiterated its mandate to uphold constitutionalism and the rule of law, with liberty being a fundamental component.
  • Citing the Arnab Goswami case, the Court emphasised that liberty is a persistent and tenacious right.
  • The decision aligns with Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer’s principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
  • The Court asserted that the right to a fair and speedy trial is inherent in the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Understanding Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception Principle:

  • The principle was first established in the 1977 landmark case, State of Rajasthan vs Balchand alias Baliya.
  • It asserts that bail should be denied only if there is a risk of the accused fleeing, obstructing justice, repeating offences, or intimidating witnesses.
  • This principle has been a cornerstone in upholding personal liberty and is frequently cited in legal cases.
  • The Supreme Court has invoked this principle in significant cases like the 2G spectrum case (2011), INX Media case (2019), and Arnab Goswami case (2020).
  • CJI DY Chandrachud in 2024, stressed its importance, urging lower courts to prioritise personal liberty.

What is Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) – Bail Conditions?

  • Bail Conditions: Section 45 sets stringent conditions for granting bail under the PMLA.
  • Public Prosecutor’s Role: Bail cannot be granted unless the Public Prosecutor is given the opportunity to oppose the bail application.
  • Court’s Satisfaction: If opposed, the Court must be satisfied that:
  • There are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty of the offence.
  • The accused is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.
  • High Bar for Bail: The section establishes a high threshold for granting bail.
  • Exception, Not Rule: The provision’s negative language implies that bail under PMLA is an exception, not the rule.

About Twin Test of Bail Under Section 45 of PMLA:

  • Stringent Bail Conditions: Section 45 of PMLA requires two stringent conditions for bail.
  • Proof of Innocence: The accused must prove prima facie innocence of the offence.
  • Prevention of Re-offending: The accused must convince the judge they will not commit any further offence while on bail.
  • Burden of Proof: The burden of proof lies entirely on the accused, who often faces challenges against the state’s resources.
  • Pre-2019 Presumption: Before the 2019 amendments, individuals accused of money laundering were presumed guilty of the underlying “scheduled offence” and had to disprove their involvement to secure bail.

Understanding Bail:

  • Definition: Bail is a legal process for temporarily releasing an accused person from custody.
  • Purpose: Ensures the accused returns for trial while maintaining the presumption of innocence.
  • Mechanism: Often involves paying a set amount of money or providing a surety.
  • Condition: The accused must comply with legal conditions to avoid further detention.
  • Balance: Balances the rights of the accused with the need to protect public safety and ensure justice.

What is Article 21?

  • Article 21: Guarantees the fundamental right to protection of life and personal liberty.
  • Significance: One of the most important and broadly interpreted constitutional provisions.
  • Protection: Shields against arbitrary actions by the state or individuals.
  • Clause: Asserts that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.
  • Applicability: Ensures the sanctity of individual existence and freedom from unlawful detention; available to both citizens and non-citizens.

Observations on the Right to Speedy Trial:

  • The Court relied on observations from its previous rulings in the Sisodia case, focusing on the extensive documentation and witnesses that could delay the trial.
  • Referencing past judgments, the Court highlighted the importance of timely trials in upholding justice.
  • The Court’s decision considered the possibility of inordinate delays in the trial process, impacting the accused’s right to a speedy trial.
  • The Court’s reliance on established precedents emphasised the need for balance between investigation and the right to liberty.
  • The inclusion of the Sheikh Javed Iqbal (2024) case further reinforced the importance of a speedy trial in protecting individual rights.

The Challenge of Delayed Trials and Long Incarceration:

  • The Court addressed the issue of lengthy incarcerations without trial, which can result in the denial of individual liberties.
  • The judgement emphasised that prolonged pre-trial detention violates the constitutional mandate for a fair trial.
  • The Court ruled that the right to bail in cases of delay should be integrated into legal provisions like Section 439 Cr.PC and Section 45 of the PMLA.
  • The Court’s decision highlighted concerns about the misuse of stringent penal laws and the oppressive nature of delays in the criminal justice system.
  • The judgement reflected a commitment to ensuring that legal processes do not become a punishment in themselves.

Concerns Over Prosecutorial Discretion and Fair Trial:

  • The judgement raised concerns about the potential for prosecutorial discretion to impact the fairness of trials.
  • The Court questioned whether the accused’s liberty should depend solely on the prosecutor’s sense of fairness.
  • The Court’s decision to extend detention based on the prosecution’s timeline for filing charges was seen as problematic.
  • The judgement underscored the importance of ensuring that the prosecutor does not become a judge in their own case.
  • The decision highlighted the need for procedural safeguards to protect the rights of the accused during the trial process.

The Guarantee of Civil Liberties in a Constitutional Democracy:

  • The Court reaffirmed that civil liberties cannot be subject to the whims of the prosecution and must be grounded in justice.
  • The judgement emphasised that sacrosanct rights underpin the legal system and must be protected against executive overreach.
  • The preservation of individual freedom is a fundamental responsibility of the judiciary in a constitutional democracy.
  • The judgement reinforced the idea that denial of liberty is a denial of humanity, and the Court must act as a bulwark against such denials.
  • The Court’s decision serves as a reminder of its role in safeguarding civil liberties and maintaining the balance of power in a democracy.

Restoring Liberty and Protecting Dignity:

  • The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail to Manish Sisodia restored his liberty, pending the final outcome of his case.
  • The judgement addressed concerns about the erosion of rights due to prolonged pre-trial detention.
  • The Court’s ruling sought to prevent undertrials from languishing in custody, losing their freedom, reputation, and dignity.
  • The decision aimed to redeem the Court from previous criticisms of ambivalence in its approach to granting bail.
  • The judgement highlighted the need for the criminal justice system to respect the dignity and privacy of individuals, even while under trial.

The Implications for Indian Democracy and the Rule of Law:

  • The Court’s decision is a significant step towards revitalising Indian democracy by upholding the rule of law and individual rights.
  • The judgement called for a shift in the nation’s political discourse away from personal animosities towards a focus on justice for all.
  • The decision serves as a reminder that the ultimate guarantee of civil liberties lies in the assertion of the people and the judiciary’s protection.
  • The Court’s ruling aims to ensure that justice is not only done but also seen to be done, maintaining public confidence in the legal system.
  • The judgement reinforces the importance of the judiciary in addressing the challenges facing democracy and ensuring that the law serves the cause of justice.

Challenges:

  • Judicial Backlog: Overcoming the backlog of cases to ensure timely justice remains a significant challenge.
  • Resource Constraints: Limited resources for the judiciary and legal aid can hinder effective reform implementation.
  • Institutional Resistance: Resistance from within the legal and political systems can slow down necessary changes.
  • Misuse of Laws: Ensuring that reforms are not circumvented by new methods of legal manipulation or misuse.
  • Public Distrust: Restoring public trust in the judiciary and legal processes, particularly among marginalised communities.
  • Balancing Security and Liberty: Ensuring that security concerns do not overshadow the protection of civil liberties.
  • Political Interference: Reducing political influence in judicial and prosecutorial processes to maintain impartiality.

Way Forward:

  • Strengthen Judicial Oversight: Enhance the judiciary’s role in scrutinising prolonged detentions to prevent misuse of legal provisions.
  • Reform Penal Laws: Amend stringent laws like the PMLA to ensure they are not used as tools of oppression but serve justice fairly.
  • Speedy Trial Mechanisms: Implement fast-track courts and digital case management to reduce delays in trials.
  • Enhance Prosecutorial Accountability: Establish checks to ensure prosecutors do not overstep their roles or influence judicial decisions unduly.
  • Public Awareness: Educate citizens on their rights to build a more informed society that can hold institutions accountable.
  • Legal Aid Strengthening: Provide robust legal support for undertrials to ensure fair representation in court.
  • Political Will for Reform: Foster a political environment that prioritises judicial reforms and upholds the rule of law.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail to Manish Sisodia reinforces the judiciary’s responsibility to safeguard individual liberties and ensure fair trials. The ruling underscores the need for judicial vigilance against the misuse of laws and emphasises the importance of a legal system that prioritises justice over procedure.

Source: The Hindu

Mains Practice Question:

Discuss the role of the judiciary in safeguarding individual liberties in India. How does the balance between national security and civil rights influence judicial decisions? Illustrate with relevant cases.

Associated Article:

https://universalinstitutions.com/legal-controversy-under-pmla/