Hyderabad: The Supreme Court on Monday provided no respite to BRS MLC Kalvakuntla Kavitha on her petition seeking protection from arrest and challenging the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the Delhi liquor scam on Monday. Instead, it instead tagged her case with two similar pending cases involving Nalini Chidambaram, wife of former Union minister P. Chidamabaram, and Trinamul Congress leader Abhishek Banerjee.
In her plea, Kavitha stated that a woman cannot be summoned to testify before the ED in its office in person and that the questioning should take place at her home. Further, the BRS MLC asked for the right to have her statements audio- or video-recorded.
Senior attorney Kapil Sibal, appearing on behalf of Kavitha, asked Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi if Kavitha would be interrogated at the ED's office or at her home in Hyderabad in response to the ED’s summons. Further, Sibal contended that because similar cases involving Nalini Chidambaram and Abhishek Banerjee were pending with the court, Kavitha’s petition ought to be grouped with them
Individual petitions were filed by Nalini Chidambaram and Abhishek Banerjee challenging the ED's authority to issue summons under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The SC had granted relief to Nalini Chidambaram, directing the ED not to take any coercive action against her.
Additionally, Sibal drew attention to the restriction placed on law enforcement officials by Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prohibiting summoning or interrogating women anywhere other than their homes. The ED summons to Kavitha violated the provision because Kavitha is not named in the FIR, he contended.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju appearing for the ED maintained that Section 160 did not apply to the PMLA. They claimed that in ‘Vijay Madanlal Choudhary versus Union of India,’ the Supreme Court upheld important amendments to the PMLA that gave the government and the ED almost limitless powers of summons, arrest and raids, while making bail nearly impossible.
The SC bench stated that it would be appropriate to hear all of the petitions together and scheduled the matter for three weeks later. Further, the bench also granted Tushar Mehta's plea to file a detailed note and written submission on the matter.
