Jail without trial

THE Supreme Court’s observations regarding the Enforcement Directorate (ED) have brought to light the contentious practice of ‘jail without trial’. Criticising the ED’s methods, the SC on Wednesday emphasised that keeping an accused behind bars for a prolonged period without trial resembled detention and impeded the fundamental liberty of individuals. In the case of Prem Prakash, an alleged associate of former Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren, the court highlighted the injustice of extended incarceration without the commencement of a trial. By filing multiple chargesheets, the ED not only violated the right of the accused to default bail but also prolonged the legal process. Expressing concern over his 18-month confinement in jail, the court underlined the need for completing investigations before arrests. Prakash was arrested in 2022 in a money laundering case linked to alleged illegal mining in Jharkhand.

Moreover, the reference to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and its interpretation in previous cases, such as the Manish Sisodia case, reinforces the principle that the right to bail is not to be curtailed arbitrarily, especially when prolonged incarceration and delay in initiating the trial are involved. In 2018, Karti Chidambaram’s arrest by the ED in the INX Media case also raised questions about prolonged detention during the probe. Similarly, the 2019 arrest of Sanjay Singal, former CMD of Bhushan Power & Steel, in a money laundering case prompted scrutiny of the ED’s actions.

The SC stance reflects a commitment to safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary state action. While investigations into financial crimes must be conducted in a time-bound manner, it is equally crucial to ensure that individuals’ rights are respected and detention is not unduly extended. The ED and other agencies must follow the due process and desist from using tactics that undermine justice and liberty.

#Enforcement Directorate #Supreme Court