Reverse Burden of Proof under PMLA and Article 20(3)

Abstract

The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) represents India’s principal anti-money-laundering legislation aimed at combating economic crimes and terror financing. One of the most debated features of the Act is the reverse burden of proof, particularly under Sections 24 and 45, which shifts the obligation from the prosecution to the accused. This framework raises serious constitutional concerns, especially regarding Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, which protects individuals from self-incrimination. This paper critically examines whether the reverse burden under PMLA violates the constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination and the presumption of innocence. It analyses legislative intent, judicial interpretation, constitutional jurisprudence, and comparative perspectives. The study concludes that while the reverse burden has been judicially upheld due to the seriousness of economic offences, significant concerns remain regarding due process, coercive investigation, and fair trial rights.