The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that the benefit of bail under a special provision of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) 2002 that includes women in the “vulnerable” category cannot be tinkered with over considerations such as social and economic standing.

The apex court passed the ruling while quashing the view taken by a single-judge bench of Delhi High Court that BRS leader K. Kavitha was not entitled to bail under Section 45(1) of the PMLA available to vulnerable sections of the society, including “a person, who is under the age of 16 years, or is a woman or is sick or infirm”.

“We find that the learned single-judge erroneously observed that the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA is applicable only to ‘vulnerable woman’,” Justice B.R. Gavai, who authored the judgment, observed.

“Further, this court in the case of Saumya Chaurasia (supra) does not say that merely because a woman is highly educated or sophisticated or is a Member of Parliament or a Member of the Legislative Assembly, she is not entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA.

“We, therefore, find that the learned single-judge of the high court has totally misdirected herself while denying the benefit of the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA,” Justice Gavai added.

The bench, which included Justice K.V. Viswanathan, had on Tuesday granted bail to Kavitha in the alleged ₹100-crore Delhi excise policy scam, saying it would pass a detailed order on the issue. It did so on Wednesday.

The high court had on July 1 cited a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the Saumya Chaurasia case and observed that Kavita was not a “vulnerable” woman as she was highly educated, had been an MP and had held several important posts in public life, and dismissed her bail plea.

The proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA states: “Provided that a person, who, is under the age of sixteen years, or is a woman or is sick or infirm, or is accused either on his own or along with other co-accused of money-laundering a sum of less than one crore rupees, may be released on bail, if the special court so directs.”

“A perusal of the... proviso would thus reveal that the proviso permits certain category of accused including woman to be released on bail, without the twin requirement under Section 45 of the PMLA to be satisfied... However, when a statute specifically provides a special treatment for a certain category of accused, while denying such a benefit, the court will be required to give specific reasons as to why such a benefit is to be denied,” the apex court said.

The high court came to a “heartening conclusion” that Kavitha was highly qualified and a well-accomplished person, the apex court bench said.

The Supreme Court ordered Kavitha’s release on bail by furnishing bail bonds worth ₹10 lakh in each of the cases.