New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday reprimanded the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The court told the investigating agency that Article 21 is for everyone in the country and the way people are being harassed in money laundering cases is not right. The fundamental rights of any accused should not be violated. A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih expressed displeasure over the hasty summons and arrest of former IAS officer Anil Tuteja.What did the Supreme Court say?
The Supreme Court said that Anil Tuteja was called by the ED when he was present in the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) office for questioning. ED asked him to appear immediately. When Tuteja did not appear on time, the ED sent a second summons after a few hours. Earlier, the ED had filed an affidavit telling the Supreme Court that Chhattisgarh Civil Supplies Corporation scam accused Anil Tuteja and Alok Shukla were in touch with the High Court judge who had granted bail to Shukla in October 2019. The ED had claimed that the then Advocate General Satish Chandra Verma was playing the role of a mediator between the two and the judge.
Why this hurry? -Supreme Court
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi termed the arrest as a wrong procedure and said that Tuteja was taken by ACB officers to the ED office, where he was interrogated throughout the night. However, Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the ED, refuted these allegations. He said that Tuteja had appeared on his own will. On this the bench asked, show us how they came willingly? Why did the ACB officer accompany him to ED? Please explain this process to us. He is at the ACB office when the ED issues summons at 12 noon and again at 5.30 pm. Why this hurry?
‘Supreme scold’ to ED
SV Raju argued that the allegations were very serious and the ED had not tortured Tuteja but had simply asked him to come. The bench said that the matter is not about the seriousness of the crime but about the manner of arrest. The bench directed the ED to tell when summons were issued against Tuteja and when they were served. The court also wanted to know how the ED came to know that the accused was in the ACB office. The bench said, if you knew that he was being interrogated in the ACB office, then why was the time given at 12:30? When you knew that ACB was interrogating him, what was the hurry to issue summons twice? This does not happen even in cases of terrorism or serious crimes in IPC.
The court said that it will deal strictly with such actions and action will be taken against the concerned officer. Additional Solicitor General S V Raju told the court that the agency has already issued a circular asking its officers not to conduct interrogation at odd hours. The court then asked him to file an affidavit on the manner of arrest.
At the end of the proceedings, the bench said that judges are also human beings and they see every day how the PMLA law is being used. This comment probably points to the recent decisions of the Supreme Court through which some of the stringent provisions of the anti-money laundering law have been relaxed.