The Delhi court emphasized that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) must operate within the confines of the law and not wield excessive power over regular citizens. It reprimanded the agency for resorting to Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) to gather statements from doctors at private hospitals in order to contest the extension of interim bail for a defendant.
Special Judge (PC Act) Vishal Gogne of the Rouse Avenue Courts emphasized that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had no valid reason to subject regular citizens, specifically doctors, to the rigorous procedures outlined in Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), especially when there was no suggestion of any connection between the doctors and the alleged money laundering activities attributed to the accused.
The Court underscored the democratic principles of India, emphasizing the rights held by citizens and the corresponding duties of the State. It cautioned against a reversal of this fundamental relationship, rejecting any authoritarian notion that the State possesses rights over citizens, who are then obligated to comply through their duties.
“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. ''
The judge cautioned that robust leadership, laws, and agencies often end up harming the very citizens they pledge to safeguard. He noted that after these laws are wielded forcefully against specific targets, they are frequently accused of being misused against ordinary citizens.
The Court asserted that the rights of citizens to be shielded from unjust procedures outweigh any overreach by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). These firm remarks were articulated in an order issued on April 30 concerning the petition filed by businessman Amit Katyal, who sought an extension of the interim bail previously granted to him.
Katyal is facing allegations of engaging in transactions with the family members of former railways minister Lalu Prasad Yadav related to the land for railway jobs scam. He underwent bariatric surgery at Medanta Hospital in Gurgaon on April 9.
Katyal's legal representatives strongly objected to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) recording statements from doctors at Apollo and Medanta Hospitals, who were providing treatment to him after he was granted interim bail on February 5, 2024. They argued that this action not only contravened the permissible actions outlined in Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) but also intruded upon the privacy of medical treatment, which is a fundamental right of the accused.
While the Court denied extension of interim bail to Katyal, it dealt strongly with ED on its conduct.
Judge Gogne said that Section 50 PMLA has no application in verification of medical or other similar documents in proceedings for interim bail.
The Court also noted with interest that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) made a deliberate effort to refrain from examining any doctors from government hospitals under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Regarding the alleged violation of Katyal's right to privacy, the Court refrained from delivering a conclusive verdict. However, it remarked that the actions of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) would have been better safeguarded if the verification of the medical records of the accused had been conducted entirely under the direction of the court.
Ultimately, the Court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Director of the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the Chairperson of the National Medical Commission, and the Medical Superintendents of RML Hospital, DDU Hospital, Apollo Hospital in Sarita Vihar, and Medanta Hospital for their information and awareness.
Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa argued the case for Amit Katyal.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju argued for the ED.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy