Kavitha defers appearance before ED, issued summons for March 20
In response to the documents Kavitha sent through authorised representative, the ED has issued a fresh summons to the Telangana legislator asking her to appear before them on March 20.
Hyderabad: BRS MLC K Kavitha deferred her appearance before the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Thursday, for recording of her statement in connection with the Delhi excise policy case. She sent documents sought by the Central agency through authorised representative and conveyed to the ED that the matter was pending before the Supreme Court.
In response, the ED has issued a fresh summons to the Telangana legislator asking her to appear before them on March 20.
Also Read
On Wednesday, Kavitha had approached the Supreme Court for an urgent hearing pointing out that as a woman, she could not be summoned to the ED office and that the officials must visit her instead. She sought protection from arrest and quashing of the summons in the case. The Apex Court however, refused interim relief and posted the case for hearing on March 24.
On Thursday, Kavitha sent her authorised representative BRS general secretary Soma Bharat Kumar to the ED office, with Bharat Kumar handing over a six-page letter to the ED authorities against her deposition along with her bank statement, personal and business details. She stated that as the summons explicitly do not require her to appear in person, she was sending her authorised representative.
“I humbly beseech your good self that the proceedings before the Supreme Court being sacred and sacrosanct, the outcome thereof must be awaited before any further proceedings take place with respect to the subject summons,” she wrote, pointing out that she had appeared before the ED on March 11 to cooperate with the investigation though her request to postpone the questioning was denied. However, the proceedings on March 11, she said, had left her in doubt.
“In a manner alien to the settled tenets of law, your good self chose to impound my phone despite there being no directive in the summons that I should bring the phone. Nothing was brought on record as to how my phone was connected with the alleged offence, if any. You have purportedly chosen to exercise powers under 50(5) of the PML Act which I am legally advised to say is completely untenable in law, apart from the phone contents being covered under the law of right to privacy,” she said.
Further, Kavitha pointed out that she was made to sit at the ED office even after sunset until around 8.30 PM. Contrary to media reports that she was confronted with some of the arrested accused, she revealed that no such confrontation took place and when she specifically asked what was the specific purpose that she was summoned for, an officer Bhanupriya Meena told her that they had a “change of plans”.
“I therefore, have reasons to believe and a grave apprehension that the enquiry/investigation being carried out may not have the sanctity of law and my expectation of a free, fair, or impartial inquiry or investigation has been severely impaired,” she added.
The BRS legislator cited several verdicts delivered by the the Supreme Court earlier and pointed out that the Central agency itself tendered an undertaking not to insist upon the presence of the petitioner at their office if the petitioner is a woman. “My case is not at all distinguishable from that case, as regards my status as a woman,” she said.
Reiterating that she would always abide by the law of the land, Kavitha said if her own rights were violated, despite being a lawmaker herself, it would be her onerous obligation to take all necessary steps within her reach to ensure that rule of law prevails and that there was no violation by any agency.
Earlier, the ED had summoned the BRS legislator for questioning on March 9. However, due to prescheduled meetings including a day-long hunger strike at Jantar Mantar in support of the Women’s Reservation Bill, she urged the authorities to reschedule her meeting to March 11. During her first appearance, she was questioned for nearly nine hours and was asked to return again on Thursday. Her statement was recorded under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
