Woman Can’t Be Classified Based On Their Education Or Occupation For Bail Under Proviso To Section 45(1) PMLA: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a woman cannot be classified based on their education, occupation or social status for being entitled to be released on bail under the provisio to section 45(1) of PMLA. “PMLA does not define a woman. It is neither the intention of the Constitution of India nor the intention of PMLA to classify women on the basis of their education and occupation,...
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a woman cannot be classified based on their education, occupation or social status for being entitled to be released on bail under the provisio to section 45(1) of PMLA.
“PMLA does not define a woman. It is neither the intention of the Constitution of India nor the intention of PMLA to classify women on the basis of their education and occupation, social standing, exposure to society, etc,” Justice Jasmeet Singh said.
The court observed that such classification of women bereft of any intelligible differentia would be an anathema to the fundamental right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
“Thus, to argue what kind of woman is entitled to fall within the proviso to section 45(1) PMLA by creating an ad-hoc illusionary sub-classification of educated women, business women, women belonging to high social strata, within the broader classification of “woman”, as sought to be done by the respondent, is misconceived,” the court said.
It added: “Once the word “woman” has been used in the Proviso to Section 45(1) of PMLA, the Court is not to further sub-classify women into different categories and apply the twin condition of Section 45 to some category of women and to exclude some category of women from the twin condition of Section 45. Doing the same would be not only be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution but also be a great injustice to the intention of the Legislature.”
Justice Singh made the observations while granting bail to Preeti Chandra, the wife of Unitech promoter Sanjay Chandra, in a money laundering case. However, at the request of Enforcement Directorate, the court said that the order be not given effect to till Friday.
Chandra, 49, is a fashion designer and philanthropist by profession. Her counsel submitted that the twin conditions for bail are not applicable to her as she is a woman and falls within the proviso to section 45(1) PMLA.
On the other hand, ED argued that the proviso to section 45 could not be attracted only on account of Chandra being a woman. It was submitted that she was not a household lady but a well educated woman running multiple companies.
Even before getting married, she was running businesses and it is in this context that proviso to Section 45(1) PMLA has to be seen, ED said.
However, Chandra’s counsel contended that the sub-classification of women under the proviso to section 45(1), as done by the Enforcement Directorate, was arbitrary and against the constitutional spirit.
Granting bail to Chandra, the court said that a beneficial legislation being PMLA, in favour of a class of persons, which is reflective of constitutional spirit, should not be considered narrowly and must be given a liberal interpretation.
“For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that once an accused is a woman, the Proviso to Section 45(1) kicks in and the applicant would fall within the proviso. However, this does not mean that the applicant will not be required to satisfy the triple test for grant of bail,” the court said.
The court observed that the twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA will not be applicable to Chandra and that triple test could be taken care of by imposing stringent conditions.
“The applicant has already been investigated for more than 13 occasions and has been in custody for more than 20 months. For the aforesaid reasons, the application is allowed and the applicant is granted bail…,” the court ordered.
Title: PREETI CHANDRA v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 515