 "Supreme Court (Photo: Wikipedia)")
The Supreme Court (SC) must rein in the Enforcement Directorate (ED) given the drastic powers it has to throw people in jail, said senior advocate Harish Salve, while arguing for the directors of reality firm M3M who were arrested for alleged money laundering charges last month
Salve, who is representing the two brothers Basant and Pankaj Bansal of the Gurugram-based M3M Group who the ED is holding, made reference to the brazen way in which the ED officers called the brothers for questioning and then served them with the summons.
As the brothers refused to accept the summons and insisted on being served properly, the ED officials arrested them and accused them of "willfully declining" to accept the summons.
Noting the disturbing facts of the case, Salve said, "When these things happen, we have to be careful. These are drastic powers given to ED and if this is not reined in, there are drastic consequences for citizens."
Salve was appearing before a bench of justices AS Bopanna and MM Sundresh to defend his clients in a petition filed by the probe agency.
The ED had petitioned the Supreme Court in response to an order issued by the Delhi High Court on June 12 granting anticipatory bail to the duo.
More From This Section
The ED had linked the two brothers to a corruption case against a former special judge in Haryana who was accused of favouring M3M group directors and another real estate firm IREO in cases filed before the judge by the ED and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The special judge, Sudhir Parmar, was suspended on April 27.
In a statement issued by ED following raids on M3M premises on June 1, the M3M group allegedly received around Rs 400 crore from the IREO group through several shell companies in multiple layers.
The M3M group siphoned off this money, the ED statement alleged.
Salve pointed out that the FIR does not name Pankaj as it was filed against another director at the firm, Roop Bansal.
"These are very strong powers available to ED [under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA)] that are being used to throw people in jail," Salve added.
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court had on July 27 last year upheld the draconian provisions of PMLA relating to powers of arrest, seizure, summoning of witnesses and stringent bail conditions.
The apex court granted a petition to review the same judgement in August. Later, a separate bench of the top court heard petitions challenging the constitutionality of two specific provisions of the PMLA: Section 50, which governs the ED's power to summon witnesses and record evidence, and Section 63, which governs the penalty for making a false statement to the ED.
These cases are set to be heard on July 18.
