THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT UNDER THE PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002

Author : Rishi Batta | Published On : 28 Mar 2024

The protection from self-incrimination along with the protection from double jeopardy as enshrined under Article 20(2) of the Constitution forms the fulcrum of the criminal justice system in India. As a necessary corollary, any confessional statement made before a police officer or out of coercion during criminal proceedings is inadmissible as evidence, and the same has been cemented in Sections 24 to 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“Evidence Act”).

The provisions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”) take a sharp deviation from the constitutional protection from self-incrimination. The vires of the said provisions, among others, were challenged before the Indian Supreme Court (“SC”). The SC settled the issue by way of its decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others v. Union of India and Others (“Judgment”), after almost a decade since the earliest batch of the petitions were filed. Consequently, the SC upheld the status quo. Though the Judgment is presently under review before the SC, this article respectfully disagrees with the conclusion arrived at by the SC in the Judgment with respect to self-incrimination.