)
The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday issued a notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on a petition, moved by Common Cause, a non-government organisation, asking it to state what action the directorate had taken under the money laundering law with regard to those coal companies, which are under investigation.
Counsel for the public interest organisation Prashant Bhushan moved the application while the court was hearing the coal scam case. He said under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the directorate had the power to attach properties of the suspects. It need not wait for finality in the prosecution.
If the proceeds of the offence under the Act had been found to be used for getting mining lease or other illegal activities, the directorate can attach the concerned properties, according to counsel. However, it is not known what action the directorate has initiated in this regard. Therefore, it should be disclosed.
Bhushan submitted that till date ED had registered only five to seven cases under the Act in the coal scam case, whereas the CBI has registered over 14 first information reports (FIRs).
According to the scheme of the Act, the coal blocks/mining leases in question are liable to be attached as they are offences listed in the schedule to the Act.
The court asked ED to submit a status report in this regard by January 15, when the case would be taken up again.
The bench headed by Justice R M Lodha was hearing arguments in the coal scam case. Seven states have been asked to state their stand in the allotment of coal blocks. Most of them told the court that they had merely followed the directions given by the central government and had no other role in this affair.
However, the attorney general’s stand is that the centre has only identified the mining area and the states had allotted the plots. The court decided to hear the states first on December 5, before the attorney general puts forward the centre’s stand, which seems to be contradictory to what the states argue.
The CBI on Tuesday opposed the suggestion coming from the three-judge bench that an amicus curiae -- independent lawyer to assist the court — in the coalscam case. The judges wanted some senior lawyer to assist it in view of the voluminous reports submitted by the CBI in sealed covers. CBI counsel Amarendra Sharan opposed the idea of such appointment as most lawyers are beholden to mining corporates and there was high possibility of leaks to the media and mining companies if such a lawyer was shown confidential CBI inquiry reports.
CBI also feared that the appointment of an amicus curiae will turn the proceedings into ‘supervision’ instead of ‘monitoring’. The judges have clarified several times that they were not supervising the investigation. They were only monitoring. But if an amicus lawyer is appointed, monitoring will have a tendency to turn into supervision, which the CBI cannot agree to as the investigations will be interfered with by third parties.
“Investigation is totally our prerogative,” Sharan said, and added: “We will share the information only with the court; comments by others are totally unacceptable to us.” The court did not take any decision on this aspect and adjourned the hearing till December 5.
