"The dependence of PMLA proceedings on a predicate offence is both a safeguard and a limitation." Discuss in the light of recent judicial pronouncements.

Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), "proceeds of crime" can arise only from a scheduled (predicate) offence. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (2022) made this link the base of every PMLA case [1]. The link protects citizens from misuse, but it also restricts enforcement.

Predicate dependence as a safeguard

• No predicate, no PMLA: if the scheduled offence ends in acquittal, discharge or quashing, the PMLA case cannot continue [1].
• Condition precedent: Pavana Dibbur (2023) held that a scheduled offence must exist before any "proceeds of crime" can exist. It also held that criminal conspiracy counts only if it aims at a scheduled offence, which stops the law being widened through the back door [2].
• Check on agency over-reach: the Delhi High Court quashed the NewsClick FIR as a "gross abuse of the process of law". It held that the ED's ECIR was liable to be closed as a result. The Supreme Court Bench remarked that the ED's appeal "did not inspire confidence" [4].
• Balance for strong powers: the Court upheld arrest, attachment and the twin bail conditions partly because of built-in safeguards, such as recording reasons in writing before arrest [1].

Predicate dependence as a limitation

• Tied to another agency: the ED's case stands or falls with the police FIR. In NewsClick, the ED appealed while the Delhi Police were still only "preparing" their own challenge [4].
• Gap with an independent, continuing offence: Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma (2025) held that laundering continues as long as proceeds are concealed, used or projected as untainted [3]. Even so, if a weak predicate case collapses, the laundering case collapses with it.
• Process as punishment: searches, attachment and arrest can happen years before the predicate offence is tested in court. The NewsClick FIR dates from 2020 [4].
• Regulatory disputes made criminal: an alleged FDI violation of ₹9.59 crore was brought under PMLA through a police FIR [4].

Way forward

• The courts should hear appeals on the predicate offence and the PMLA case together.
• Purely regulatory breaches should go to FEMA adjudication.
• The government should publish yearly data on ECIRs filed, decided, and closed after the predicate was quashed.

The predicate link therefore cuts both ways. It keeps PMLA tied to real crime, but it makes PMLA depend on other agencies and on slow trials. Hearing linked cases together, using civil routes for regulatory lapses and publishing case outcomes would keep the safeguard without the loophole. That would respect Article 21's guarantee of fair procedure and still allow firm action against money laundering.