The Enforcement Directorate has lodged an appeal with the Kerala High Court challenging a ruling by a single judge. This ruling stipulated that former Finance Minister Thomas Isaac should not be called for investigation until the conclusion of the 2024 General Elections, citing his candidacy in the Pathanamthitta constituency.

On April 9, Justice T R Ravi, presiding over a single bench, decided to postpone hearings in the masala bonds case. The judge deemed it inappropriate to disrupt a candidate participating in Parliamentary elections during this crucial period. Consequently, the hearing was adjourned until May 22, coinciding with the Court's reopening after the summer vacation.

The Division Bench, led by Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice M A Abdul Hakhim, proposed expediting the hearing of the matter shortly after the elections. With the elections in Kerala set for April 26, 2024, both the Enforcement Directorate and Dr. Isaac are amenable to resolving the issue promptly post-elections, as affirmed by the Court.

Before the Court, Additional Solicitor General of India (ASGI) A.R.L. Sundaresan contended that political involvement should not impede the course of law. Sundaresan asserted that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has the right to pursue its investigation unhindered, emphasizing that elections should not serve as grounds for delaying the investigation.

The argument put forth highlighted that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had issued the summons well before the elections were announced, indicating that political considerations weren't a factor in their actions. Moreover, it was emphasized that the ED's investigation was nearing completion, underscoring the importance of Dr. Isaac's cooperation with the summons to facilitate the conclusion of the investigation.

The submission contended that upon reviewing the documents presented by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the single judge identified certain explanations that needed to be sought from Dr. Isaac. Thus, it was argued that while elections were a factor to consider, they should not be the sole justification for delaying the investigation, especially given the need to address the queries raised regarding Dr. Isaac's involvement.

The counsel on behalf of Dr Isaac submitted that ED investigation during the brink of the election would affect his election prospects. It was argued that the ED has no bonafide and summons were issued without a prima facie case.

Case title: Enforcement Directorate v Thomas Isaac

Case number: WA 571/2024