A DOCTRINAL AND EXPLORATORY STUDY OF ARTICLES 14, 20, AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION IN RELATION TO RIGHT TO BAIL, ARREST, AND PROPERTY SEIZURE UNDER THE PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002

AUTHOR – ADITYA BALLOLLI, STUDENT AT CHRIST UNIVERSITY (BANGALORE)

BEST CITATION – ADITYA BALLOLLI, A DOCTRINAL AND EXPLORATORY STUDY OF ARTICLES 14, 20, AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION IN RELATION TO RIGHT TO BAIL, ARREST, AND PROPERTY SEIZURE UNDER THE PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (2) OF 2026, PG. 271-282, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

ABSTRACT

Money laundering presents a fundamental challenge to modern economies by enabling criminals to disguise illicit proceeds and reintegrate them into legitimate financial systems. India’s legislative response, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), was enacted to align domestic law with international anti-money laundering (AML) obligations while addressing the inadequacies of earlier statutes such as Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA), and Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA). The central research problem addressed in this paper is whether the PMLA, in its current form, effectively combats financial crime without compromising constitutional guarantees of liberty, equality, and due process. The objective of this study is twofold: first, to analyze the legal architecture of the PMLA with respect to bail, arrest, evidentiary rules, and property attachment; and second, to evaluate judicial interpretations that have shaped the Act’s constitutional balance, with specific attention to landmark cases such as Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India and Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India. Methodologically, the research adopts a doctrinal approach, relying on statutory analysis, judicial precedents, and comparative perspectives from common law jurisdictions. Secondary sources, including scholarly commentary and international AML frameworks, are also examined to situate the PMLA within a broader legal and policy context. The conclusion suggests that while the PMLA serves a crucial role in curbing economic crime, its stringent provisions such as the “twin conditions” for bail, the reverse burden of proof, and non-disclosure of the Enforcement Case Information Report pose serious constitutional concerns. The study argues for recalibration through legislative reform and judicial oversight to ensure that the fight against money laundering remains robust but does not erode fundamental rights under Articles 14, 20, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Keywords: Money Laundering, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Constitutional Rights, Bail, Enforcement Directorate