‘High handedness’, ‘inhuman conduct’: When courts slammed ED investigations
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court rebuked the Enforcement Directorate, and gave bail to a former bureaucrat in the Chhattisgarh liquor case.
Supreme Court's strong words for the Enforcement Directorate (ED) while giving bail to former Chhattisgarh excise official Arun Pati Tripathi, an accused in the Chhattisgarh liquor case on Wednesday, has once again put the spotlight on the agency's investigations, which have often come under the scanner of the judiciary.
While granting bail to Tripathi, the Supreme Court rebuked the ED for keeping him in custody without challenging the February 7 order of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which had held that the ED case did not have the requisite sanction.
Here are some recent instances of the Enforcement Directorate being pulled up by courts:
(1.) In January, the central agency was rapped by the apex court for its ‘high handedness’ and ‘inhuman conduct’ over a 15-hour-long interrogation of a Congress leader, an ex-MLA from Haryana.
(2.) In another case of money laundering, the court said the ED made arguments ‘contrary to the provisions of PMLA’ just to oppose the applicant's bail plea.
(3.) In December last year, in the same Chhattisgarh liquor case, the Supreme Court slammed the agency over its ‘tearing hurry’ in arresting Anil Tuteja, another former bureaucrat allegedly involved in the case.
(4.) On one occasion, the Bombay high court told the ED that the right to sleep was a basic human requirement and couldn't be violated for recording statements overnight.
(5.) In a separate case, the high court cautioned the Enforcement Directorate against ‘harassing’ citizens and 'taking the law into its own hands.'
(6.) In November 2024, the Punjab and Haryana high court called the agency's probe 'slipshod and unprofessional,' and summoned the ED director to explain the ‘lapses.’
(7.) In another case, a trial court slammed the ED for ‘overreaching’ its powers by recording statements of doctors at private hospitals under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, without any evidence of the doctors' involvement in money laundering activities.
(With PTI inputs)
