Supreme Court Issues Stern Warning To ED, Says 'Don't Fight Political Battles'

The remarks came during hearings in two separate cases — one involving Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s wife and another concerning ED summons issued to senior advocates.

Chief Justice BR Gavai criticised the agency for persisting with the case despite clear judicial findings at two levels.

Source : PTI

The Supreme Court on Monday delivered a stern rebuke to the Enforcement Directorate (ED), accusing the agency of being drawn into political conflicts and misusing its legal powers. The remarks came during hearings in two separate cases — one involving Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s wife and another concerning ED summons issued to senior advocates.

In the first matter, the ED had appealed against a Karnataka High Court verdict that quashed money laundering charges against BM Parvathi, wife of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, and State Urban Development Minister Byrathi Suresh, reported India Today.

The case relates to the alleged irregular allotment of land by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA). The High Court had upheld the trial court's decision to dismiss the ED’s proceedings in its March 7 ruling.

Chief Justice BR Gavai criticised the agency for persisting with the case despite clear judicial findings at two levels. “You know very well that the single judge upheld the trial court order,” he remarked, adding, “Let political battles be fought among the electorate. Why are you being used for it?”

He continued with a pointed warning: “Unfortunately, I have some experience with ED in Maharashtra. Please do not force us to say something. Otherwise, we will have to say something very harsh about the Enforcement Directorate.”

In response, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the ED, offered to withdraw the appeal while urging the court not to treat it as a precedent. The Chief Justice acknowledged the withdrawal and said, “We do not find any error in reasoning adopted in the approach of the single judge. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, we dismiss it. We should thank you, ASG, for saving some harsh comments.”

Court Flags ED Summons to Lawyers as Chilling, Seeks Guidelines

The second case, taken up suo motu by the apex court, concerned ED notices issued to lawyers for advice rendered to clients. Various legal associations — including the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), and the In-House Lawyers Association — had filed intervention pleas.

Senior advocate Vikas Singh told the court that such actions had a "chilling effect" on legal practice. Drawing parallels with international scenarios, he said, “We saw in Turkey that the entire bar association was disbanded. We also saw something like this in China. We should not go in this direction. Some guidelines must be laid down.”

The Chief Justice concurred: “Even if the advice given by the lawyer is wrong, how can he be summoned? This is privileged communication. Some guidelines must be laid down.” He said the court would appoint an amicus curiae to consolidate the interventions and would hear the matter next week. “All of us are lawyers,” he noted.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, however, argued that a "concerted effort" was being made to build a negative narrative against the ED. “Politicians can create a narrative from various interviews. Sometimes wider observations from the courts make a wrong impression,” he said.

But Chief Justice Gavai stood firm, stating, “We are seeing this happen in many cases. Even after well-reasoned orders by the High Court, the ED is filing appeal after appeal.” Addressing the claim of narrative-building, he added, “We don't have time to read newspapers and YouTube… the only time I have even seen movies is in the hospital in the last week.”

During the hearing, it was revealed that senior advocate Arvind Datar had received an ED summons while in Spain, which caused him considerable mental distress. The Solicitor General said the matter was swiftly addressed and the summons was withdrawn within six hours following intervention by top authorities.

Mehta also referenced a case from Gujarat where a person allegedly asked a lawyer how to conceal a murder, to which the Chief Justice responded, “That would be a criminal offence. That’s a different thing. The issue is you have to take permission first before summoning a lawyer.”

In closing, Chief Justice Gavai reiterated the court’s stance: “Please don’t use the court as a political platform. Don’t force us to open our mouths... we will have to make some harsh comments about the ED. Don’t percolate this virus everywhere in the country now.”

The court issued notice in the suo motu matter and has scheduled it for a detailed hearing next week.