Express News Service
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to hear on March 24, BRS MLC K Kavitha’s petition, challenging the summons issued to her by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with the Delhi liquor policy scam. Kavitha was grilled by the ED on March 11 in the case and she was summoned by ED again for the third time on Thursday to appear at its Delhi office.
Kavitha’s plea was mentioned by senior advocate Vikram Chaudhari before a bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha. Urging the bench to list the plea immediately, Chaudhari said that she had earlier appeared before the ED but the repeated summons were contrary to law because the petitioner was a woman.
“Can a woman be called to the office of the ED? She is now being summoned by ED for questioning and it is completely against law,” Chaudhari said.Considering Chaudhari’s submissions, the CJI refused to accede to her request for granting interim relief by listing it for urgent hearing and staying March 16 ED summons. However, it agreed to hear the petition on March 24.
Kavitha in her plea argued that the investigation against her was nothing but a ‘fishing expedition’ being undertaken by ED solely at the behest of the incumbent ruling political party. It was also stated in the plea that though she was not named in the FIR registered by CBI alleging irregularities in the liquor scam, certain members of the ruling party at the Centre made scandalous statements linking her to the policy.
“The ED, in violation of settled law, summoned her to appear before their offices in New Delhi and confiscated her cell phone without any written order for production of the said phone,” the plea stated.
She also contended that she was forced to produce her cell phone whereas she was summoned under Sections 50(2), 50(3) PMLA which do not require production of mobile.
“There is no case against the petitioner. The only basis on which the petitioner has been implicated is on the basis of certain statement of few persons who have given incriminating statement qua themselves as well as allegedly against the petitioner. However, such statements have been extracted by using threats and coercion, which is evident from the fact that on 10.03.2023, one Mr Arun Ramachandran Pillai, has retracted his statement. The credibility of the statements purported to be against the petitioner is under serious doubt,” the plea also stated.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to hear on March 24, BRS MLC K Kavitha’s petition, challenging the summons issued to her by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with the Delhi liquor policy scam. Kavitha was grilled by the ED on March 11 in the case and she was summoned by ED again for the third time on Thursday to appear at its Delhi office.
Kavitha’s plea was mentioned by senior advocate Vikram Chaudhari before a bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha. Urging the bench to list the plea immediately, Chaudhari said that she had earlier appeared before the ED but the repeated summons were contrary to law because the petitioner was a woman.
“Can a woman be called to the office of the ED? She is now being summoned by ED for questioning and it is completely against law,” Chaudhari said.Considering Chaudhari’s submissions, the CJI refused to accede to her request for granting interim relief by listing it for urgent hearing and staying March 16 ED summons. However, it agreed to hear the petition on March 24.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });
Kavitha in her plea argued that the investigation against her was nothing but a ‘fishing expedition’ being undertaken by ED solely at the behest of the incumbent ruling political party. It was also stated in the plea that though she was not named in the FIR registered by CBI alleging irregularities in the liquor scam, certain members of the ruling party at the Centre made scandalous statements linking her to the policy.
“The ED, in violation of settled law, summoned her to appear before their offices in New Delhi and confiscated her cell phone without any written order for production of the said phone,” the plea stated.
She also contended that she was forced to produce her cell phone whereas she was summoned under Sections 50(2), 50(3) PMLA which do not require production of mobile.
“There is no case against the petitioner. The only basis on which the petitioner has been implicated is on the basis of certain statement of few persons who have given incriminating statement qua themselves as well as allegedly against the petitioner. However, such statements have been extracted by using threats and coercion, which is evident from the fact that on 10.03.2023, one Mr Arun Ramachandran Pillai, has retracted his statement. The credibility of the statements purported to be against the petitioner is under serious doubt,” the plea also stated.
