'Chilling Effect': Ex-SC Judge Laments Recent PMLA Verdict, Slams BBC 'Survey'

The judge said that the 2022 verdict overruled his own older ruling which had read down stringent PMLA provisions.

(Photo Courtesy: Screenshot / YouTube) 

Former Supreme Court judge Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, on Thursday, 2 March, condemned the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that upheld several stringent provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

What did he say? Justice Nariman pointed out that the 2022 judgment overruled his own previous verdict of 2017 which had read down stringent bail conditions of PMLA.

He added that this was "very unfortunate" because it has now become difficult to get bail in money laundering cases.

"The ultimate conviction rate may be 0.2 per cent, so there is no hope of getting convicted, but you will not be let out on bail. So if the coercive machinery of the State is to be used in this fashion, then there is no doubt that the 'chill effect' spoken about in our judgments comes into play," he said, according to Bar and Bench.

The retired top court judge was speaking at the inaugural Jitendra Desai Memorial Lecture, on the topic, "Freedom of Speech: Contemporary Challenges".

The 2017 & 2022 PMLA Verdicts: In 2017, Justices Nariman and SK Kaul had read down Section 45(1) of the PMLA, which imposed two additional conditions for release on bail.

The top court had then explained how these twin conditions were discriminatory and arbitrary.

It had held that Section 45 the presumption of innocence on its head, and such a provision can be upheld only if there is a compelling state interest.

But, this verdict was overruled in 2022 by a 3-judge bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar.

That's not all: Justice Nariman went on to criticise the Union Government's banning of the BBC Documentary titled, ‘India: The Modi Question.'

The two-part documentary is related to Prime Minister Narendra Modi's alleged role in the 2002 Gujarat riots.

He added that the Income Tax 'raids' that followed this were "even more unfortunate."

"Now, in fact followed after banning these two documentaries- and I must tell you, banning something is almost certain to make more people see it than otherwise because you are banning something on the internet which is anyway hydra-headed. You may say banned under YouTube, banned under x or y but another hydra head will pop up and one of these young gentlemen will immediately give you the BBC documentary on some other website. It is a futile ban to start with."

Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman

(With inputs from Bar and Bench)