E-Paper
Unpardonable, says Supreme Court on ED’s overnight grilling of ex-IAS officer
After the Supreme Court sharply criticised ED for its handling of Anil Tuteja’s arrest, the agency blamed an overzealous officer who it said, had already resigned
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday slammed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for its “unpardonable” acts of calling persons at short notice, keeping them awake through the night and then arresting them the next day and said that even terrorists and heinous offenders are not treated in this manner as it raised doubts on the arrest and interrogation techniques practised by the agency to be unconstitutional.
A bench headed by justice Abhay S Oka said, “We are worried about what the future will be. There is something known as Article 21 of the Constitution of India (right to life and liberty) of the citizens. This is unpardonable and simply not done that you interrogate a person through the night and take him into custody the next day. This is just not done.”
The court was hearing a petition filed by retired IAS officer Anil Tuteja, 61, who was arrested by the ED in connection with the Chhattisgarh liquor case in April this year. Tuteja was arrested within days of the top court quashing the prosecution complaint (charge sheet) by ED based on an income tax department probe.
Tuteja had gone to the state’s anti-corruption bureau (ACB) on April 20 where he appeared for questioning in connection with the same case. While he was still at ACB office, he received the first ED summon at 12:30pm which required him to appear before ED officers at 12 noon. A little later, a second summon was issued to him to appear that same evening and a posse of ED officers took him straight from the ACB office, interrogated him through the night and arrested him after daybreak on April 21.
“This does not happen with terrorists and serious offenders under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). See the unjust manner in which the officer has acted. We want the officers to be presented before us,” said the bench, also comprising justice Augustine George Masih.
Tuteja, who is presently in jail, has sought interim release, arguing that his arrest was illegal.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for the 2003 batch IAS officer along with advocate Arshdeep Khurana said that one R Naresh was the officer who took him from ACB office and interrogated him through the night. “What is shocking is that this happened after this court had quashed the earlier prosecution complaint filed by ED. He had appeared before ACB under a protective order of the court,” Singhvi said.
The bench told ED to file a detailed response informing the timing of summon, the source who informed that Tuteja was at ACB and the reason for serving him summons while at the ACB office.
The top could will take up the case on November 5.
“There is something peculiar about this case. What was the tearing hurry when you know that he is being interrogated by the ACB.” the bench asked, adding, “We say every day about how PMLA is being implemented. Now we are going to take these officers to task and come down very heavily against such arrests.”
Additional solicitor general (ASG) SV Raju representing the agency admitted that this could be due to the overzealousness of the officer concerned. He said that the officer concerned Naresh has resigned pointing out that several steps are now being taken to improve the procedure.
“Maybe we are at fault as sometimes you have overzealous officers. But we have come down on interrogation at night. We have also issued a circular and are taking action against officers. Perhaps this officer has resigned because of that,” ASG said.
The law officer said economic offences are as serious a crime as terrorism. In July last year, the final investigation report by ED alleged that there were selective grant of liquor licenses emerging out of a 2022 Income tax department charge sheet filed against Tuteja and others before a Delhi court.
ED claimed that illegal profits worth ₹2,000 crore were earned by a syndicate involving politicians, bureaucrats and private individuals during the period 2019-23. This money came through bribes collected from distillers and unaccounted sale of country liquor by state-run liquor vends.
Raju said the officer’s mistake should not allow a serious offender to escape. The court noted that Tuteja hadn’t filed any bail plea and approached the court to set aside his arrest. The bench suggested to Singhvi that bail could be taken up first as consideration of his petition against the arrest may take time.
Singhvi underlined that he had already been in custody for 181 days and if his arrest is quashed, he may not require bail. The bench agreed to decide the validity of the arrest on the next date of hearing.
