“ED officers should remember that there is something called Article 21 in the country (which guarantees right to life and liberty),” the Supreme Court said.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih took exception to the way in which former IAS officer Anil Tuteja was issued summons and arrested in a hurry. It sought an explanation from ED.
The court took into consideration that Tuteja was summoned by ED when he was in the office of Anti-Corruption Bureau, where he was being interrogated, and asked to appear before the anti-money laundering agency.
ED issued a second summons only a few hours after he did not appear before it at the time fixed by the agency.
In its affidavit, ED had told the apex court Anil Tuteja and Alok Shukla, two bureaucrats accused in Chhattisgarh’s Nagrik Apurti Nigam scam, “were in touch with the HC judge who granted bail to Shukla” in October 2019. The agency further claimed that the then advocate general, Satish Chandra Verma, had been liaisoning between the two and the judge.
Senior advocate Abhishek Sanghvi challenged the arrest for violation of established procedure and contended that Tuteja was taken by ACB officers to the ED office, where he was interrogated the whole night. However, additional solicitor general S V Raju, appearing for ED, refuted the allegation and said that he had appeared voluntarily.
“Show us how they came voluntarily. Why should ACB officers accompany them to ED? Please explain to us this procedure. He is in the ACB office when ED issues summons at 12 noon and then at 5.30pm. Why is this tearing hurry?” the bench asked the ASG.
Raju argued that the allegation was very serious and that the ED had only asked Tuteja to appear before it. But the bench said that it was not about the seriousness of the offence but the way arrest was carried out. It directed the agency to furnish the time at which summonses against Tuteja were issued and the time at which they were served. The court also askeds the ED how Tuteja was linked to the case.
“If you knew that he was being interrogated in the ACB office, why was the time of 12.30 given? What was the hurry to issue summonses two times when you knew that he was being interrogated by the ACB? This doesn’t happen (even) in the case of terrorism or serious offences in the IPC,” the bench observed.
The court warned that it would come down heavily on such practices and the officer concerned should be dealt with seriously.
Raju said that the agency had already sent out a circular asking its officers not to conduct interrogation at odd hours. The court thereafter asked him to file an affidavit on the manner in which he was arrested.
