Why in news
The Supreme Court raised questions about the involvement of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) in cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA)
This led to the Enforcement Directorate making AAP an accused party in the case against Kejriwal
This is notable as it marks a rare instance where a political party is implicated directly in such serious criminal proceedings.
Legal implications
PMLA Section 70 defines “company” but does not explicitly include political parties, creating a legal gap.
Political parties might not fit the legal definition under Section 70 of the PMLA, which targets businesses and firms.
Cabinet decisions are considered policy decisions and are protected from judicial scrutiny, not seen as criminal acts.
Treating political parties as accused could disrupt their essential role in democratic processes
Applying PMLA to political parties could be misused for political motives or retaliation.
Uncertainty exists about how political parties align with PMLA definitions and provisions.
Traditionally, only individual actions, not collective cabinet decisions, face legal liability.
Accusing political parties could interfere with their governance and policy-making capabilities.
Political parties have not typically been treated as legal entities under similar laws.
Such legal actions may be perceived as attempts to undermine political rivals.
The Supreme Court needs to clarify whether political parties can be legally charged under PMLA.
RPA Section 29A: RPA defines a political party as “any association or body of individual citizens” but does not fit PMLA’s business-centric definitions.
Discrepancies between PMLA and RPA definitions could lead to inconsistent applications and confusion.
There may be constitutional issues with treating political parties as accused under criminal laws designed for other entities.
The Supreme Court must review and provide clear guidelines on the applicability of PMLA to political parties, considering both legal and democratic implications
COMMENTS