BURDEN OF INNOCENCE UNDER PMLA: A CONSTITUTIONAL CRITIQUE

AUTHOR – AVAYAW KUMAR* & DR KUNVAR DUSHYANT SINGH**

* STUDENT AT AMITY LAW SCHOOL LUCKNOW, AMITY UNIVERSITY UTTAR PRADESH LUCKNOW CAMPUS

** ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW AT AMITY LAW SCHOOL LUCKNOW, AMITY UNIVERSITY UTTAR PRADESH LUCKNOW CAMPUS

BEST CITATION – AVAYAW KUMAR & DR KUNVAR DUSHYANT SINGH, BURDEN OF INNOCENCE UNDER PMLA: A CONSTITUTIONAL CRITIQUE, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (4) OF 2026, PG. 231-244, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344. DOI – https://doi.org/10.65393/IJLRV6I427

ABSTRACT

The presumption of innocence constitutes the philosophical and jurisprudential bedrock of classical criminal law, serving as a critical safeguard against the arbitrary deprivation of personal liberty by the State. However, the escalating complexity of transnational financial crimes has catalysed a global paradigm shift, prompting legislatures to enact stringent socio-economic statutes that fundamentally derogate from these classical procedural guarantees. In India, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) functions as the primary legislative bulwark against the integration of illicit wealth into the formal economy. Central to the enforcement mechanisms of this regulatory framework are Section 24, which imposes a reverse burden of proof upon the accused, and Section 45, which establishes draconian twin conditions for the grant of pre-trial bail. This comprehensive research report delivers an exhaustive constitutional critique of these provisions, rigorously analysing their friction with the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 20(3), and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Through a detailed doctrinal analysis of landmark Supreme Court jurisprudence tracing the pendulum swing from the rights-protective approach in Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India to the state-centric validation in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India the study examines how the Indian judiciary attempts to balance compelling state interests with inviolable human rights. The paper further explores the evolving “doctrine of foundational facts” established in recent rulings such as Prem Prakash and Pavana Dibbur, which mandates that the prosecution must prove a baseline nexus between the proceeds of crime and the scheduled offence before triggering the reverse onus. By engaging in a robust comparative legal analysis with international frameworks, particularly the United Kingdom’s Unexplained Wealth Orders (UWOs) and the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) standards, the research contextualizes India’s unique amalgamation of civil forfeiture standards within a criminal prosecution matrix. Ultimately, the paper posits that while combatting financial crime is an urgent macroeconomic imperative, the systemic erosion of the presumption of innocence transforms the investigative process into a form of pre-trial punishment, thereby necessitating urgent legislative reforms and procedural safeguards to prevent the arbitrary extinguishment of personal liberty.

Keywords: Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Reverse Burden of Proof, Article 21, Presumption of Innocence, Bail Jurisprudence