Date: August 2, 2023
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued before the Supreme Court that the ED does not possess a vested right to take an accused into police custody even within the first 15 days of arrest.
The ED had arrested DMK MP and Tamil Nadu minister V Senthil Balaji in connection with a cash-for-jobs scam in the state, leading to a batch of pleas questioning the legality of the agency's actions.
Rohatgi insisted that after the initial 15-day period, custody during the investigation can only be in judicial custody. He emphasized that the law frowns upon police custody and that judicial custody should be the rule, with police custody being an exception. To support his contention, Rohatgi cited the 1992 Anupam Kulkarni ruling, where the Supreme Court had held that an accused cannot be detained in police custody beyond 15 days from the initial arrest.
The senior counsel highlighted the importance of safeguarding the rights guaranteed under Articles 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) and 22 (Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases), stating that the statutory provisions owe their worth to these constitutional articles.
Regarding the conflicting legal positions adopted by previous benches, Rohatgi suggested that the present case be referred to a larger bench to ensure clarity on the matter.
In response to the bench's query about the interim arrangement if the matter is referred to a larger bench, Rohatgi asserted that there cannot be an interim order in favor of the accused, as the current law prohibits police custody after 15 days. However, he conceded that the ED can still interrogate the accused while in judicial custody by making an application for the same.
During the arguments, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal also presented his case, arguing that the power to arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act should not be conflated with the power to seek police remand. He claimed that the ED officers were not "police officers" under the Act, and therefore, they were not entitled to seek custody.
The case is a complex legal matter, with various judgments and interpretations in question. The Supreme Court's decision will have significant implications for the ED's powers and the rights of the accused in money laundering cases.
Background:
V Senthil Balaji, a cabinet minister in the Tamil Nadu government, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in June on allegations of involvement in a cash-for-jobs scam that occurred during his tenure as transportation minister from 2011 to 2016. Following the arrest, Balaji's wife filed a habeas corpus petition before the Madras High Court, challenging the ED's custody of her husband. The high court's split verdict led to appeals being filed in the Supreme Court to determine the legality of the ED's actions. The matter remains under scrutiny, with the apex court expected to provide clarity on the ED's authority and the rights of the accused in such cases.
Case Details:
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy