BRS MLC challenges summons to woman, but no interim relief from SC
Says ED unlawfully seized her phone
Court to hear her plea on March 24
Wants her statements to be videographed in the presence of her lawyer
ED bares Kavitha’s contact details
NAVEENA GHANATE
Hyderabad
Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) MLC K Kavitha, who had been asked to appear before the Enforcement Directorate again for questioning in connection with the Delhi liquor scam, approached the Supreme Court in a last-ditch attempt on Wednesday with her plea against “issue of summons to a woman by the ED”, but the Court did not grant any interim relief to her. The Court, however, agreed to hear on March 24 her plea challenging the issue of summons to her — a woman — by the Enforcement Directorate.
Kavitha was grilled by the ED initially on March 11 for about nine hours in connection with a money laundering case related to the Delhi liquor policy scam. The central agency had then asked her to appear again before it on March 16.
Kavitha, daughter of Telangana Chief Minister K Chandrasekhar Rao, has now approached the Supreme Court with a plea that, as per norms, a woman cannot be summoned for questioning before ED in office and therefore her questioning should take place at her residence.
The counsel for Kavitha said that “a woman is now being summoned by ED for questioning” and maintained that it is “completely against the law”. Kavitha’s lawyer mentioned the plea before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and sought an urgent hearing. The court agreed to list it on March 24.
Even though the primary reason for ED interrogation was “confrontation with an arrestee”, Kavitha was not confronted with arrestee. Her phone was taken. But ED said she produced it herself. Summons never wanted her to produce cell phone.
Earlier, the Court asked the lawyer what was the urgency in the matter. The lawyer submitted that Kavitha had been asked to appear before ED on Thursday.
In her petition filed through advocate Vandana Sehgal, Kavitha has urged the apex court to quash the ED summons dated March 7 and 11 on the grounds that asking her to appear before the agency office, instead of questioning her at her residence, is contrary to the settled tenets of criminal jurisprudence and thus, wholly unsustainable in law being violative of the proviso to Section 160 of CrPC.
Kavitha said: “There is no case against the petitioner. The only basis on which Kavitha has been implicated is on the basis of certain statement of few persons who have given incriminating statement qua themselves as well as allegedly against the petitioner. However, such statements have been extracted out of threat and coercion, which is evident from the fact that on 10.03.2023, one Arun Ramachandran Pillai, have retracted his statement. The credibility of the statements purported to be against the petitioner is under serious doubt”.
The petition reads: “Enforcement Directorate has been adopting highly coercive tactics and third-degree measures in connection with their purported investigations. This is evident from their treatment of another witness, E. Chandan Reddy, who was brutally manhandled.”
Kavitha said that the Enforcement Directorate is eliciting false statements from other witnesses by threatening to place the said witnesses and their family members under arrest.
Kavitha said: “The investigation against the petitioner is nothing more than a fishing expedition being undertaken by the Enforcement Directorate solely at the behest of the incumbent ruling political party. The Enforcement Directorate, in the teeth of settled law, summoned her to appear before their offices in New Delhi and has confiscated her cellular phone without any written order for production of the said phone”.
She has also sought that all procedures to be carried out by ED, including those related to the recording of her statements be videographed in the presence of her lawyer at a visible distance interalia by way of installation of appropriate CCTV cameras. She has also sought to set aside the impounding order dated March 11, 2023, and declare the seizure made there under null and void. In the petition, she said: “Despite the petitioner, Kavitha not being named in the FIR, certain members of the incumbent ruling political party at the Centre made scandalous statements linking the petitioner to the Delhi excise policy and the said FIR.”
“The political conspiracy against the petitioner (K Kavitha) unfortunately did not end with judicial intervention by way of the suit. The Enforcement Directorate filed a remand application qua one of the accused on November 30, 2022, before the concerned Court. This remand application contained the personal contact details of the petitioner. There was no rhyme or reason to include the personal contact details of the petitioner in a remand application which did not even concern the petitioner. The act is all the more egregious considering the petitioner is a lady,” the BRS leader stated in her plea.
“The subsequent events are extremely shameful and, in the belief of the petitioner, were orchestrated by the Enforcement Directorate at the behest of the members of the incumbent ruling party at the Centre, as part of a larger conspiracy against the petitioner,” she said.
Kavitha added that contents of the said remand application containing the contact details of the petitioner were leaked to the media and the public. “The remand application was shared extensively over social media. Such an act is petty, illegal, and an unfortunate reflection upon the malicious conduct of the Enforcement Directorate in consonance with the political party in power at Centre,” Kavitha said.
Kavitha said that ED had also denied her request seeking to be examined at her residence, and the probe agency made a categorical statement that “there is no provision under the PMLA for the recording of statements at any persons’ residence”. “That immediately thereafter on March 8, 2023, at 11:03 pm, the petitioner sent an email asserting her rights to be examined at her residence. However, the petitioner after reserving her rights intimated to the respondent that she will appear before them on March 11, 2023,” Kavitha stated.
