New Delhi: A Delhi court pulled up the Enforcement Directorate, saying that it cannot “arrogate powers to itself” to subject ordinary citizens to invalid processes under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
Special judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Vishal Gogne of the Rouse Avenue Courts said ED must know that it is bound by law and cannot use the might of the law against ordinary citizens.
The court made these observations on Tuesday, April 30, during the hearing of a plea filed by businessman Amit Katyal seeking an extension of the interim bail granted to him. Katyal is accused of carrying out transactions with the family members of former railway minister Lalu Prasad Yadav in connection with the land for railway jobs case.
He was granted interim bail on February 5. Since he had undergone surgery for the bariatric procedure at Medanta Hospital, Gurgaon on April 9, he moved the court for an extension of his bail.
While denying an extension of bail to Katyal, the court also pulled up ED on its conduct. Katyal’s lawyers raised a strong objection to ED recording statements of Apollo and Medanta Hospital doctors who treated him after he had secured bail.
The counsel for Katyal said this was not only in violation of what was permissible under Section 50 PMLA but also an intrusion into the privacy of the medical treatment, which was an accused’s fundamental right.
“The use of Section 50 [PMLA] by the ED against the law-abiding doctors of private hospitals is a contemporary contribution to this perception. Such negation of the intended purpose of strict legislations is required to be avoided by the investigation agencies and consciously monitored by the courts,” the court argued, according to Bar and Bench.
It admonished the probe agency for subjecting ordinary citizens (in this case doctors) to the stringent process of Section 50 PMLA without an iota of allegation of nexus of the doctors with the allegations of money laundering against the accused.
The court went on to say that in a democracy like India, while citizens possess rights, the state has certain towards them. It said this “fundamental relationship” cannot be inverted to advance an authoritarian argument.
“Not only would the acceptance of such an argument be an inversion of the social contract on which every liberal democracy is based but also a violation of the constitutional scheme and constitutional morality. As an agency answerable to the law and the courts, the ED cannot arrogate powers unto itself. While a government agency too is expected to be a votary of civil rights, the court will certainly not remain amiss in highlighting and rejecting an entirely high-handed act of the ED,” the judge said.
