A woman may be ‘vulnerable’ whether she is well-educated or not : SC
What the Apex court said in K. Kavitha vs. Directorate of Enforcement?
-by : Editor, Juristic Lens
In a democratic setup, transparency and accountability in governance are fundamental. The Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) empowers citizens to access information under the control of public authorities, thereby promoting openness and curbing corruption. But the effectiveness of your RTI request heavily depends on how well you draft and file it.
Let’s decode how to craft a high-impact RTI application that doesn’t end up being ignored or rejected.
BACKDROP of the CASE
K. Kavitha, a leader of the Bharat Rashtra Samithi, was arrested by the authorities in Liquor policy cases. She approached Delhi High Court with a bail plea. While reviewing her bail application, the Delhi High Court determined that she cannot receive the advantage of the first proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. This decision was based on the court’s view of her as a highly educated and politically influential individual. Earlier the trial court also rejected her bail plea on the same grounds relying upon Supreme Court’s judgment in Saumya Chaurasia vs. Directorate of Enforcement.
WHAT is section 45(1) of PMLA, 2002 ?
Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 outlines the conditions for granting bail in cases involving money laundering and requires the accused to demonstrate that there is no prima facie case against them in order to be eligible for bail, thereby establishing more stringent criteria for securing a release on bail.
Proviso to Section 45(1) provides that a person under sixteen, a woman, or someone who is sick or infirm, and accused of laundering less than one crore rupees, may be granted bail at the discretion of the special court.
THE SUPREME COURT’s DECISION
Criticising previous courts’ reasoning, the Apex court clarified that the ruling in Saumya Chaurasia’s case does not imply that a woman should not be eligible for benefit under the proviso just because she is well educated, or an MP/MLA. The Apex court added that Courts need to be more sensitive and sympathetic towards the category of persons included in the first proviso to Section 45 and similar provisions in the other Acts. It was emphasised that in cases where law grants certain privileges to certain accused persons, the court while rejecting them, must also diligently explain the rationale for rejecting those privileges.
THE AFTERMATH
Does it mean that courts are obligated to grant bail just because the accused is a woman?
No. There is no question that several laws including section 45 of PMLA allow for the release on bail of certain accused persons, including women, even when they have not met the standards outlined in provisions. However, it is possible to deny a woman the benefit of such provision, depending upon peculiarity of each case.
The same has already been held in Enforcement Directorate vs. Preeti Chandra (2023) and Saumya Chaurasia case. In Preeti Chandra case the court pointed out the resemblance between sec. 45(1) of PMLA and other provisions of law. The court said :
K. Kavitha, a leader of the Bharat Rashtra Samithi, was arrested by the authorities in Liquor policy cases. She approached Delhi High Court with a bail plea. While reviewing her bail application, the Delhi High Court determined that she cannot receive the advantage of the first proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. This decision was based on the court’s view of her as a highly educated and politically influential individual. Earlier the trial court also rejected her bail plea on the same grounds relying upon Supreme Court’s judgment in Saumya Chaurasia vs. Directorate of Enforcement.
WHAT is section 45(1) of PMLA, 2002 ?
Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 outlines the conditions for granting bail in cases involving money laundering and requires the accused to demonstrate that there is no prima facie case against them in order to be eligible for bail, thereby establishing more stringent criteria for securing a release on bail.
Proviso to Section 45(1) provides that a person under sixteen, a woman, or someone who is sick or infirm, and accused of laundering less than one crore rupees, may be granted bail at the discretion of the special court.
THE SUPREME COURT’s DECISION
Criticising previous courts’ reasoning, the Apex court clarified that the ruling in Saumya Chaurasia’s case does not imply that a woman should not be eligible for benefit under the proviso just because she is well educated, or an MP/MLA. The Apex court added that Courts need to be more sensitive and sympathetic towards the category of persons included in the first proviso to Section 45 and similar provisions in the other Acts. It was emphasised that in cases where law grants certain privileges to certain accused persons, the court while rejecting them, must also diligently explain the rationale for rejecting those privileges.
THE AFTERMATH
Does it mean that courts are obligated to grant bail just because the accused is a woman?
No. There is no question that several laws including section 45 of PMLA allow for the release on bail of certain accused persons, including women, even when they have not met the standards outlined in provisions. However, it is possible to deny a woman the benefit of such provision, depending upon peculiarity of each case.
The same has already been held in Enforcement Directorate vs. Preeti Chandra (2023) and Saumya Chaurasia case. In Preeti Chandra case the court pointed out the resemblance between sec. 45(1) of PMLA and other provisions of law. The court said :
“The proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 confers a discretion on the Court to grant bail where the accused is a woman. Similar provisions of Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 have been interpreted by this Court to mean that the statutory provision does not mean that person specified in the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 437 should necessarily be released on bail.”
– Enforcement Directorate vs. Preeti Chandra (2023)
