E-Paper
On ex-Bengal minister’s bail plea, Supreme Court flags ED’s low conviction rate
Partha Chatterjee, who is seeking bail in the case probed by ED, is currently in the custody of the Central Bureau of Investigation
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that it is easy for politicians to engage in corruption and then claim innocence as it agreed to examine the bail plea of former West Bengal education minister Partha Chatterjee accused in the money laundering probe linked to the teacher recruitment scam.
Chatterjee, who is seeking bail in the case probed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED, is currently in the custody of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). He claimed that the CBI arrest in October this year was only a ploy to keep him incarcerated even as he said that the cash worth ₹50 crore recovered in the case was not from him but from a woman Arpita Mukherjee with whom he had no connection.
The bench headed by justice Surya Kant agreed to examine the details of the CBI custody on December 2 even as it observed, “It is very easy for politicians to engage in corruption and then claim that I am innocent.” The bench further observed, “You are the minister, and it is a recruitment scam where other accused are your subordinates. Non-recovery of money from you is insignificant. You will not keep the money in your house.”
Additional solicitor general (ASG) SV Raju appearing for ED said that the investigation exposed how the applicant, a high-ranking minister in the state, was allegedly neck-deep in corruption and denied some 50,000 meritorious candidates entitled to jobs as assistant teachers in the selection process conducted by the West Bengal Primary Education Board.
The bench, also comprising justice Ujjal Bhuyan, remarked, “What is the conviction rate (of ED)? We can understand if it is 60 or 70% but it is very poor... We must strike a balance. If in the ultimate analysis, he is not convicted, then what happens. Two years and four months in custody is not a small period.”
ASG Raju said, “Does the accused alone have fundamental rights? The court must see that the fundamental rights of victims are also affected. Facts in this case do not warrant a soft approach unless he has spent half the sentence. He must apply bail after that period before the trial court.”
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for the Trinamool Congress leader said that the CBI registered a case against him in the year 2022 and had chosen to arrest him now after 28 months which makes the arrest “suspect”. In the ED case, out of the maximum punishment of 7 years that he can suffer, he has remained incarcerated for 2.5 years and pre-trial detention cannot become a means to punish an accused.
Further, he claimed that all other accused in the case were already out on bail. He said, “This court in the Senthil Balaji case (relating to cash-for-jobs scam against former TN minister V Senthil Balaji) granted bail considering the improbability of the trial ending soon.” A similar situation arose in this case as he was arrested in July 2022 by ED, and with 183 witnesses and over 400 documents yet to be examined, there was no prospect of trial beginning soon as investigation in the case is still ongoing.
ASG Raju told the court that as regards Chatterjee, the investigation can be over in one month but pointed out that even with a bail in ED case, he cannot be released owing to CBI custody. Though he did not appear for CBI, he pointed out that CBI had arrested Chatterjee in the past as there are four separate cases relating to his role in four examinations conducted for selection of teachers at various levels in state-run schools.
On the court flagging ED’s conviction rate, Raju said, “In this case, there will be 100% conviction as there is evidence to prove the case against him.” However, if released on bail, the ED apprehended that the other co-accused may feel threatened.
The bench countered, “How long can he be kept inside? On general principles, had it been a case where a trial was progressing, we could say that the trial be completed in 3 or 4 months. We don’t blame you as there are several victims and segregating them is a herculean task.” The court suggested that on trial basis, interim bail can be granted on condition that if witnesses are pressurised, bail may be cancelled. However, the bench added, “We may also say that a minister taking bribe and cash found in his company is also serious.”
Rohatgi said the CBI case was guided by political animosity and was a sham.
He also cited Chatterjee’s advanced age of 73 years and accompanying medical conditions to claim the benefit of bail. As regards Arpita who disclosed to ED that the cash belonged to the minister, Rohatgi said, “She is an actress. I have nothing to do with her.”
From Arpita’s two flats, cash amounting to over ₹49 crore and jewellery worth ₹5 crore was seized. Later, it was known that Arpita was closely associated with Chatterjee and incriminating documents were recovered showing how the duo jointly operated bank accounts and dummy companies to conceal the proceeds of crime. ED also recovered digital devices from Chatterjee’s residence pointing to his involvement in the illegal appointment of teachers.
Chatterjee approached the top court for bail after the Calcutta high court rejected his request on April 30, noting the statement of witnesses that linked the former minister with Arpita Mukherjee. Though the former minister sought to distance himself from the recovery of cash at Arpita Mukherjee’s residence, ED sought to link the two, pointing out that Chatterjee was the nominee in Arpita’s bank account and insurance policies.
