The Supreme Court of India on January 15 strongly criticised the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for making legal submissions that were "contrary to law" and reaffirmed that such conduct would not be tolerated.
The remarks were made during the hearing of a case where the ED argued that the stringent bail conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) should apply to a woman accused, a submission the court deemed incorrect.
A bench consisting of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan disapproved of the argument presented by the ED, which contended that the tough provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA Act were applicable regardless of the accused's gender. The Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, later apologised for the miscommunication that led to the controversial submission, stating that it was an error. However, the court firmly rejected the explanation, with Justice Oka stating that such submissions were unacceptable.
Justice Oka further emphasised that the Union of India's actions indicated an intent to deny bail at all costs, highlighting the irony of the government’s legal representatives not understanding the basic provisions of the law. He criticised the last-minute filing of counter-arguments, suggesting that it reflected an underlying assumption that individuals arrested under the PMLA should always be denied bail.
In light of the ED’s flawed submissions and after noting that the accused had been incarcerated since November 2023, the court granted bail to the woman. The court also observed that there was no clear indication that the trial would conclude in the near future.
Justice Oka concluded with a pointed remark, emphasising that if government counsels were unaware of key legal provisions, it raised serious concerns about the conduct of proceedings. He also made it clear that the court would not accept such mishandling of law in the future.