Satyendar Jain can’t have his lawyer during ED questioning: HC

The lawyer will not be present, either at visible or audible distance, ruled justice Yogesh Khanna.

Delhi health minister Satyendar Jain’s lawyer will not be present, either at visible or audible distance, during his interrogation by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with a money laundering case, the Delhi high court said in an interim order on Saturday even as the investigating agency said that Jain has only been called for questioning and cannot be called an accused until he is named in an FIR.

Delhi health minister Satyendar Jain being produced at the Rouse Avenue Court on Tuesday in New Delhi. (Sanchit Khanna / HT Photo)

Justice Yogesh Khanna accepted ED’s contention that since there is no FIR or prosecution complaint by the agency against Jain, and that he has been called only for questioning, Jain cannot claim the right to have the presence of his lawyers during the course of recording of his statement under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

“Since there is no apprehension [of threat or coercion] raised in the present matter, hence as a matter of right such direction ought not to have been given in the recording of statement,” the judge said in its six-page order.

Jain was arrested on May 30 by ED in connection with an alleged money laundering case amounting to ₹4.81 crore. On Tuesday, a trial court while remanding Jain to nine days custodial interrogation of the agency, had allowed the presence of one counsel from Jain’s side to remain present during questioning, but only at a visible and not audible distance.

Challenging this decision, additional solicitor general (ASG) SV Raju, for ED, on Friday argued that Jain is not an accused and has been taken into custody for questioning and recording of the statement under section 50 of the PMLA.

He also argued that an accused cannot be called as such till the time his name has not been mentioned in the First information report (FIR)or enforcement case information report (ECIR). The ASG also said that the entire process is being video-recorded, despite Jain objection, to rule out any threat or coercion.

“Even otherwise, admittedly, his entire recording of statement is videographed and audiographed which certainly would dispel the apprehension of any coercion, threat to the respondent (Jain),” Justice Khann said his order.

The court disposed of the interim application seeking stay and kept the main matter for hearing on August 24.

Justice Khanna had reserved his order on Friday after hearing arguments from the ED as well as Jain’s side.

ED submitted that it is only after the court takes cognisance of the prosecution complaint or charge sheet filed by them, that Jain will be called an accused while also contending that Jain has been taken into custody only for interrogation.

“I (ED) call a person, does not make him an accused. It is the law which makes a person an accused. My (ED) saying anything would not change anything,” ASG Raju said on Friday.

The submissions were opposed by senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and N Hari Haran, who appeared for Jain. They contended that the ED had named their client as an “accused” in writing, and contended that the argument was meant to deny the minister his basic rights.

Saying that Jain cannot be a ‘Trishanku’ (in limbo), Singhvi said, “They have repeatedly called me [Jain] an accused, even in the remand paper. The pleadings say one thing, and their oral arguments are otherwise. I [Jain] cannot be a Trishanku. I [Jain] have to either be an accused or not be an accused”.

Responding to Raju’s submission about sign language, Singhvi sarcastically had said, “The accused might have learnt lip syncing days before his arrest, as also his lawyer learnt sign language so that they can make signs to each other.”

The case against Jain is based on a 2017 CBI FIR lodged against him. ED has accused the Delhi minister of having laundered money through four companies allegedly linked to him and in which he was holding shares, while amassing disproportionate income.

According to ED, Jain transferred money to Kolkata through hawala channel and got it back from dummy companies in the form of accommodation entries, even though he could not show the source of the money received.

Accommodation entries are usually done by hawala operators to accommodate illegal money in a company through a shell firm or in the form of cash by breaking large amounts into smaller sums to avoid suspicion.

Jain has denied all wrongdoing, and called it political vendetta.