Yes, to an extent. The expanded scope of the PMLA, as upheld by the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022), raises serious concerns about infringement of fundamental rights of the accused under Articles 14, 20, and 21 of the Constitution.

Key concerns include:
• No presumption of innocence (reversal of burden of proof)
• Stringent bail conditions (twin conditions under Section 45)
• Lack of transparency (no access to ECIR, unlike an FIR)
• Widened investigative powers without judicial oversight

➡️ While the Court upheld these provisions citing the gravity of economic offences, critics argue they compromise due process and personal liberty, thus partially infringing on fundamental rights.

The Supreme Court has upheld the expanded scope of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), granting the Enforcement Directorate (ED) extensive powers of arrest, search, and seizure. Critics argue that these provisions infringe upon fundamental rights, particularly the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) and the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Notably, the PMLA imposes a reverse burden of proof on the accused, compelling them to prove their innocence, which deviates from the principle that the prosecution must prove guilt. Additionally, the ED's ability to summon individuals and record statements without them being formally accused raises concerns about coercion and the potential violation of constitutional protections. While the Supreme Court has made certain rulings to protect the rights of the accused, such as requiring written grounds for arrest, the overall framework of the PMLA continues to be criticized for its impact on fundamental rights.