SC tags Kavitha’s case, to take up for hearing after three weeks

Supreme Court did not grant interim relief to BRS MLC K Kavitha on her plea in connection with the questioning by the Enforcement Directorate and challenging the ED summons, and tagged her petition with others

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday did not grant interim relief to BRS MLC K Kavitha on her plea in connection with the questioning by the Enforcement Directorate and challenging the ED summons, and tagged her petition with others.

A bench of justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M Trivedi said it would haer petitions and other pleas after three weeks. Appearing for Kavitha, senior advocate Kapil Sibal said, “Whether she needs to be interrogated at home or in the ED office is the issue which is seized of by this court and notice has been issued in petitions filed by Nalini Chidambaram and Abhishek Banerjee. I have more to say than tagging the matter.”

---

He informed the bench that the plea filed by Nalini Chidambaram, a senior advocate and wife of Congress leader P Chidambaram, deals with a similar issue of summoning women accused by the ED. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju said that after the filing of Nalini Chidambaram’s petition, a judgement was passed by a three-judge bench upholding the provisions of the Prevention of the Money Laundering Act (PMLA) that squarely covers the provisions for summoning an accused.

The bench said it would be appropriate if all the petitions are heard together, and listed the matter after three weeks.

Kavitha had deposed before the ED on March 11 to record her statement and was summoned again on March 16. She was again made to be present in the ED office for about 10 hours on March 21, her third deposition before the agency. In her petition, Kavitha argued that as per norms, a woman cannot be summoned for questioning before ED in office and that questioning should take place at her residence. She also stated that the ED case was a political conspiracy. She sought that all procedures carried out by ED, including those in relation to the recording of statements be audio or videographed in the presence of her lawyer at a visible distance by way of installation of appropriate CCTV cameras.

Kavitha also pointed out that despite her not being named in the FIR, certain members of the incumbent ruling political party at the Centre made scandalous statements linking her to the Delhi Excise Policy and the FIR. She argued that the ED filed a remand application for one of the accused on November 30, 2022, before the court, which contained her personal contact details for no reason as the remand application did not even concern her.