The Paradox Of Economic Sovereignty: A Jurisprudential Analysis Of Double Jeopardy And Procedural Fairness Within The PMLA Framework
- IJLLR Journal
- 21 hours ago
- 1 min read
Pradeep Kumar, Chanakya National Law University, Patna
Rupesh Kumar, Chanakya National Law University, Patna
ABSTRACT
The constitutional protection against double jeopardy, enshrined in Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution, serves as a vital safeguard against repetitive state prosecution. However, the rise of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) has introduced a complex "dual-track" enforcement mechanism that tests the limits of this doctrine. This article examines the intersection of Article 20(2) and the PMLA, analyzing the "standalone" nature of laundering offenses versus their inherent dependency on predicate crimes. By synthesizing the landmark Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (2022) judgment with cutting-edge 2024–2026 rulings from the Supreme Court and High Courts, this research explores the "continuing offense" fiction, the "automatic collapse" principle, and the recent judicial shift toward procedural fairness under Article 21. It concludes that while PMLA prosecutions rarely trigger traditional double jeopardy bars due to the "identity of offense" test, emerging mandates for transparency and the "No Wall, No Plaster" doctrine are providing new avenues for constitutional relief in an era of aggressive financial regulation.
