Delhi liquor scam: Supreme Court defers BRS MLC Kavitha’s petition against ED by 3 weeks

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday heard a petition filed by BRS MLC Kalvakuntla Kavitha, raising objections against her questioning by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in connection with the Delhi liquor policy scam case. After a 15-minute-long hearing, a division bench of the apex court deferred the matter for further hearing by three weeks.

After taking up Kavitha’s petition, the division bench comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M Trivedi heard arguments from senior Supreme Court advocate and Congress party veteran Kapil Sibal, who represented Kavitha, and Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India, for the ED. The financial probe agency, in an extraordinary move, filed a Caveat petition last week, urging the apex court not to give any ruling or interim directions over Kavitha’s petition without hearing its side of arguments.

Kapil Sibal told the division bench that the ED appeared vindictive in its pursuit of Kavitha for questioning and that the financial probe agency did not comply with norms needed to be followed in the case of a woman. Stating that Kavitha was asked to appear before the ED for investigation, he questioned how she could be summoned when she was not an accused in the Delhi liquor scam case.

Referring to the past precedences of Abhishek Banerjee and Nalini Chidambaram, Sibal felt that the rulings given in these cases should be duly considered even in the matter of summoning Kavitha for investigation. Citing Section 160 of the CrPC, the petitioner’s counsel said that a woman should be questioned only at her residence or a place of her choice and the questioning should not stretch beyond 6 pm on a given day.

Countering this, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, arguing on behalf of the ED, said that the provisions of the CrPC were not applicable for the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). CrPC and the PMLA should be seen differently, he said. adding that the ED had the authority under PMLA to question anyone at any time and regardless of gender considerations.

He also sought to dismiss the petitioner’s contention based on the past judgement given in the Vijay Mondal case. The verdict given in this case is not relevant for the PMLA, he argued. The Solicitor General also sought to justify the ED’s discretion in summoning Kavitha for questioning in the Delhi liquor scam case. He said that the ED’s summons to Kavitha were based on evidence that the financial probe agency had gathered in the process of its investigation.

After hearing both sides for close to 15 minutes, the Supreme Court division bench ordered the listing of the matter for further hearing to a date after three weeks. It further asked the counsels of Kavitha and the ED to submit their written arguments to it.

Kavitha seeks investigation by SIT

BRS MLC Kavitha made a new request in her petition, seeking probe into the case by a special investigation team (SIT). Kavitha filed a petition in the Supreme Court alleging that the ED was denying her rights as a woman.

She requested that a woman, who was called as a witness, be questioned at her house or through video conference. She alleged that, during the investigation, there were many instances of the ED officials causing mental agony and claimed that the behaviour of the ED officials was shocking.

Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Vikram Chaudhuri appeared on behalf of Kavitha. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General SV Raju presented arguments on behalf of the ED.