In which one of the following cases, the two conditions for release of an accused on bail under Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of India?

Correct option is A

The correct answer is (a) Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India.

Explanation

In the landmark case of Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India (2017), a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court (Justice R.F. Nariman and Justice S.K. Kaul) struck down the "twin conditions" of Section 45(1) of the PMLA as unconstitutional.

What were the "Twin Conditions"? Under the original Section 45, bail could be granted only if:

1. The Public Prosecutor was given an opportunity to oppose the application.
2. The Court was satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

Why were they held unconstitutional? The Court found the provision violated Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 21 (Right to Life and Liberty) because:

• Manifest Arbitrariness: The conditions were linked to the "scheduled offence" (predicate crime) rather than the money laundering offence itself.
• Reversal of Innocence: It effectively turned the "presumption of innocence" on its head before the trial even began.

Information Booster:

The legal status of Section 45 has been a "tug-of-war" between the Judiciary and the Legislature.

The PMLA Bail Timeline:

• 2017 (Nikesh Tarachand Shah): Supreme Court strikes down the twin conditions.
• 2018 (Finance Act Amendment): Parliament amended Section 45 to remove the specific "anomalies" mentioned by the Court, effectively attempting to revive the twin conditions for all offences under the Act.
• 2022 (Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India): A three-judge bench upheld the newly amended Section 45, ruling that money laundering is a "heinous" crime and the stringent twin conditions are legally valid to protect the nation's economic sovereignty.