Will we become so harsh that… Supreme Court reprimands ED in money laundering case

New Delhi : The Supreme Court questioned the Enforcement Directorate (ED) whether refusing to give documents to the accused in money laundering cases is not a violation of their fundamental rights? The court also asked the central agency whether the ED can refuse to give documents to the accused only on technical grounds? This case is related to the money laundering case involving many big leaders including Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren, AAP leader Manish Sisodia and BRS leader K. Kavitha.

SC’s question in Sarla Gupta vs ED case

The Supreme Court raised this question during the hearing of the Sarla Gupta vs ED case of 2022. The matter is related to whether the investigating agency can deprive the accused of the important documents on which it is relying in the pre-trial phase in the money laundering case. A bench of Justices A.S. Oka, A. Amanullah and A.G. Masih heard the appeal related to the supply of documents in the money laundering case. The bench asked the ED whether the refusal of the agency to give the documents seized during the money laundering investigation to the accused is not a violation of his/her fundamental right to life and personal liberty?

Our aim is to provide justice- Supreme Court

The Supreme Court said that times are changing. Our aim is to provide justice. Will we be so harsh that when a person is facing a case, we say that the documents are safe? Will this be justice? The court further said that there are many cases in which bail is granted, but nowadays people are not getting bail in magistrate cases. Times are changing. Can we be so harsh?

‘Why can’t everything be transparent’

According to the Bar and Bench report, while hearing the case, the court asked whether the accused can be denied documents on technical grounds only? Justice Amanullah asked why everything cannot be transparent? Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for ED, replied that if the accused knows that the documents are there, he/she can ask. But if he/she does not know and only has an idea, then he/she cannot get it investigated. On this, the court asked how will the documents be trusted? Will this not violate Article 21 of the Constitution? Which guarantees the right to life and liberty.

What did the Supreme Court say about the document

The court further said that in a PMLA case, you can get thousands of documents, but you rely on only 50 of them. The accused cannot remember every document. Then he/she can ask that whatever document has been recovered from my house should be given. To this, the public prosecutor said that the accused has a list of documents and unless it is necessary and appropriate, he/she cannot ask for them. he/she said that suppose he/she applies for thousands of pages of documents, then what to do? To this the bench said that it is a matter of minutes, it can be easily scanned.

Supreme Court reserved the decision

The court said that if an accused is relying on documents for bail or dismissal of the case, he/she has the right to ask for it. However, Solicitor General S.V. Raju opposed it. he/she said no, there is no such right. he/she can request the court to look into it. Suppose there is no such document and it is clearly a case of conviction and he/she only wants to delay the trial, then there cannot be this right. After this, the court has reserved the verdict in the case. PMLA has repeatedly come under scrutiny after several high-profile opposition leaders were arrested by central agencies under the anti-corruption law.