ED failed to provide grounds of arrest, argues Sibal defending Senthilbalaji

CHENNAI: The Third Judge hearing the Habeas Corpus Petition (HCP) case filed by Minister V Senthilbalaji’s wife Megala observed that the Minister must abide, when he doesn’t abide and put up tantrums, what can the ED do. He also questioned why Senthilbalaji was unwilling to receive the grounds of arrest given by the Enforcement Directorate.

Justice CV Karthikeyan, named as the third judge to hear the HCP case, on Tuesday heard arguments of senior counsel Kapil Sibal, who appeared for Senthilbalaji, through video conference.

Pointing out to Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy’s judgment, which uses the word ‘drama’, Justice Karthikeyan asked why did this individual refuse to receive the grounds of arrest. “You first explain that before pointing accusing fingers. Everyone has a duty to abide by the rule of law, when you don’t abide and put up tantrums, what can ED do,” the Justice asked.

Responding to it, senior counsel NR Elango representing Senthilbalaji said that the he has given full cooperation to the ED.

While commencing his arguments, senior counsel Kapil Sibal said that in the Prohibition of Money Laundering (PMLA) case there should be material evidence to prove money laundering. However, no such things have been found out by the ED. According to PMLA Section 19, which empowers the ED to arrest someone under the Act they should follow the procedures of writing down the reasons for arrest, keep it in a sealed cover and sending it to the adjudicating authority. Within 24 hours, the arrestee must be produced before the Magistrate. Sibal contended that in this case the grounds of arrest were not given to Senthilbalaji and he had no idea on what grounds he was arrested, further, he did not have access to any material, Sibal said.

By quoting previous judgments of the Supreme Court Sibal contended that in the PMLA case, ED can only investigate and they cannot interrogate.

From the beginning to end the ED overreached every proceeding they enabled custodial interrogation before the sessions court and they didn’t interrogate Senthilbalaji, he said. What prevents them from interrogating him even in judicial custody, this is a case where they say they could not interrogate in the manner they wanted, Sibal added.

Elango vehemently contended that during the arrest fundamental rights of Senthilbalaji were violated with no material or grounds of arrest. Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan for ED objected to this and said that they cannot interrogate Senthilbalaji considering he was hospitalised.

Justice Karthikeyan posted the hearing to July 12.

BlurbKapil Sibal contended that in the PMLA case, ED can only investigate and cannot interrogate