NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Friday said state govt officials should cooperate with Enforcement Directorate in its probe in money laundering cases and questioned the Madras high court order staying ED’s summonses to five district collectors of Tamil Nadu in illegal sand mining cases.
The observation could have implications for cases being probed by the agency in opposition-governed states.
At the outset of hearing, a bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal said, “How can the state file this writ petition? Under which law… You satisfy us on how the state is interested and how it can file this writ petition against Enforcement Directorate. How is the state aggrieved?” ED filed a petition against TN in SC, the other side pointed out.
State bound to protect officials from ‘illegal’ ED probe, Tamil Nadu government tells Supreme Court
Tamil Nadu government was bound to protect its officials from “illegal“ Enforcement Directorate (ED) probe, the state told Supreme Court on Friday as the court said the state must cooperate with the agency in its probe into money laundering.
ED summoned Vellore, Tiruchirappalli, Karur, Thanjavur and Ariyalur district collectors on Nov 17, but Tamil Nadu govt, along with the aggrieved bureaucrats, filed writ petitions in Madras high court (HC) alleging violation of their fundamental rights by ED. HC had stayed the summonses.
ED moved SC against the HC order that held that the agency was venturing “into a fishing expedition to find out whether information and evidence collected from the district administration can be processed further from other sources to find out commission of scheduled offence” so that it may then identify the proceeds of crime that will help them proceed under PMLA. Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Amit Anand Tiwari, appearing for the state and the officers, said while petitions filed by the officers were maintainable as they were the aggrieved party, the state was also bound to protect its officials from “illegal” probe.
The SC bench was about to stay the HC order, but it deferred the hearing for Feb 26 after Rohatgi pleaded for time to clear the preliminary objection raised by the bench by placing before it details of writ petitions filed by ED against the state. He also said there was no predicate offence in the case for ED to start probe and HC was right in staying the summonses.
Additional solicitor general S V Raju, appearing for ED, told SC that the district collectors were not among the accused in the case and were summoned only as witnesses.
The observation could have implications for cases being probed by the agency in opposition-governed states.
At the outset of hearing, a bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal said, “How can the state file this writ petition? Under which law… You satisfy us on how the state is interested and how it can file this writ petition against Enforcement Directorate. How is the state aggrieved?” ED filed a petition against TN in SC, the other side pointed out.
State bound to protect officials from ‘illegal’ ED probe, Tamil Nadu government tells Supreme Court
Tamil Nadu government was bound to protect its officials from “illegal“ Enforcement Directorate (ED) probe, the state told Supreme Court on Friday as the court said the state must cooperate with the agency in its probe into money laundering.
ED summoned Vellore, Tiruchirappalli, Karur, Thanjavur and Ariyalur district collectors on Nov 17, but Tamil Nadu govt, along with the aggrieved bureaucrats, filed writ petitions in Madras high court (HC) alleging violation of their fundamental rights by ED. HC had stayed the summonses.
ED moved SC against the HC order that held that the agency was venturing “into a fishing expedition to find out whether information and evidence collected from the district administration can be processed further from other sources to find out commission of scheduled offence” so that it may then identify the proceeds of crime that will help them proceed under PMLA. Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Amit Anand Tiwari, appearing for the state and the officers, said while petitions filed by the officers were maintainable as they were the aggrieved party, the state was also bound to protect its officials from “illegal” probe.
The SC bench was about to stay the HC order, but it deferred the hearing for Feb 26 after Rohatgi pleaded for time to clear the preliminary objection raised by the bench by placing before it details of writ petitions filed by ED against the state. He also said there was no predicate offence in the case for ED to start probe and HC was right in staying the summonses.
Additional solicitor general S V Raju, appearing for ED, told SC that the district collectors were not among the accused in the case and were summoned only as witnesses.