Engaging in political conflicts, experiencing misuse: ED confronts Supreme Court’s displeasure in two cases

On Monday, the Supreme Court criticized the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for what it termed efforts to “engage in political battles” via legal actions, making strong remarks in two distinct cases – one concerning an appeal regarding relief awarded to Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s spouse in the MUDA case, and the other a suo motu examination of ED notices to attorneys for counsel provided to clients.

The Supreme Court was reviewing the ED’s appeal contesting a Karnataka High Court decision that had dismissed money laundering actions against BM Parvathi, the spouse of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, and Karnataka Urban Development Minister Byrathi Suresh.

The matter involved the purported unlawful allocation of plots by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA). On March 7, the High Court upheld the trial court’s ruling to annul the ED proceedings.

Chief Justice BR Gavai questioned the agency’s move to appeal despite concurrent findings by the lower court and the High Court. “You know very well that the single judge upheld the trial court order,” Justice Gavai said, asking, “Let political battles be fought among the electorate. Why are you being used for it?”

Justice Gavai added, “Unfortunately, I have some experience with ED in Maharashtra. Please do not force us to say something. Otherwise, we will have to say something very harsh about the Enforcement Directorate.”

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the ED, offered to withdraw the appeal but requested that it not be treated as a precedent.

The Chief Justice responded by saying, “We do not find any error in reasoning adopted in the approach of the single judge. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, we dismiss it. We should thank you, ASG, for saving some harsh comments.”

The Supreme Court addressed a suo motu issue regarding the ED’s summons to senior advocates for legal counsel provided to clients, with intervention applications submitted by the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), In-House Lawyers Association, and various other legal organizations.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh told the bench that the ED’s actions had a “chilling effect” on the legal profession. Referring to international examples, he said, “We saw in Turkey that the entire bar association was disbanded. We also saw something like this in China. We should not go in this direction. Some guidelines must be laid down.”

The Chief Justice agreed, noting, “Even if the advice given by the lawyer is wrong, how can he be summoned? This is privileged communication. Some guidelines must be laid down.”

He emphasised that the court would appoint an amicus curiae to collate the interventions and would hear the matter in the coming week. “All of us are lawyers,” he said.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that there was a deliberate attempt to build a narrative against the agency, saying, “There is a concerted effort to create a narrative against an agency. Politicians can create a narrative from various interviews. Sometimes wider observations from the courts make a wrong impression.”

The Chief Justice, however, pushed back, saying, “We are seeing this happen in many cases. My experience of travelling from various courts unfortunately on the very first day back I have two matters from two political parties. I have had to say don’t politicise. We are not passing any compliments to the ED which are recorded in a judgment. We have seen so many matters that even after well-reasoned orders by the High Court, the ED is filing appeal after appeal.”

Responding to the narrative-building argument, the Chief Justice said, “We don’t have time to read newspapers and YouTube the only time I have even seen movies is in the hospital in the last week.” The Solicitor General clarified, “I’m not saying this Court was influenced I’m not taking an adversarial stand.”

During the hearing, one counsel pointed out that when senior advocate Arvind Datar received an ED summons, he was in Spain and experienced significant mental trauma.

The Solicitor General responded, “When the issue of summons to Mr. Datar was brought to my notice, it was also brought to the notice of the highest executive authority. That is why within six hours the notification was issued that the summons could not have been issued.”

The Solicitor General also mentioned a case from Gujarat where a man allegedly sought legal advice from a lawyer on how to hide a body after committing murder. The Chief Justice clarified, “That would be a criminal offence. That’s a different thing. The issue is you have to take permission first before summoning a lawyer. Justice Vishwanath had issued certain orders.”

The Chief Justice concluded, “We have been saying since morning, please don’t use the court as a political platform. Don’t force us to open our mouths… we will have to make some harsh comments about the ED. Don’t percolate this virus everywhere in the country now. Let political battles be fought before the electorate. Why are you being misused for it?”

The court has sent out a notice regarding the suo motu case and set a hearing for next week.