Those summoned by ED expected to respond: SC
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that persons summoned under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) must appear before the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to cooperate with an ongoing investigation, dismissing the Tamil Nadu government’s attempt to stop the federal agency from questioning some of its district collectors in relation to alleged illegal sand mining in the state.
Suspending a Madras high court order that restrained ED from seeking the personal presence of five district collectors, the top court maintained that the officers are “required to respect and respond to the summons” of the agency and ordered collectors to appear before the investigators on the date assigned by the agency.
“From a bare reading of the Act, it clearly transpires that the concerned authority has power to summon any person if it considers their attendance necessary during the course of investigation or proceedings under the Act... district collectors and persons to whom summonses have been issued are obliged to respect and respond to said summonses,” held a bench of justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal.
The court order comes at a time when states headed by political parties other than the Bharatiya Janata Party have accused the Union government of targeting political rivals with the help of federal agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation and ED.
On Monday, Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal skipped the seventh ED summons for questioning in the money laundering case linked to alleged irregularities in the nowscrapped Delhi excise policy 2021-22. In a statement, the Aam Aadmi Party later said Kejriwal would not appear before the ED since the matter is sub judice.
On Tuesday, the bench was hearing an appeal filed by ED against the Madras HC order passed in November 2023, staying the summons issued to five district collectors of the state in connection with alleged illegal sand mining. The high court passed the stay order after the state government filed a petition, complaining against ED’s summons to its officers. The SC called the state’s petition “thoroughly misconceived” because it sought a relief that the court said would indirectly derail ED’s investigation into the case.
“Some of these offences are scheduled offences under PMLA. It hardly needs to be mentioned that Article 256 of the Constitution obligates the state government to exercise its executive power to ensure compliance with the laws made by Parliament,” stated the court in its order, adding the state government’s writ petition in the high court was filed under a “misconception of law”.
“Accordingly, the operation and execution of the interim order of the high court is stayed and district collectors shall appear and respond to the summonses in question on the next date indicated by ED,” directed the bench.
Last week, the bench pressed the MK Stalin government to justify how the state government was aggrieved by the summons to the district collectors by a central agency that was looking into allegations of money laundering. ED registered a complaint in September last year based on four FIRs filed in the state in connection with the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and other provisions of the IPC.