New Delhi:The Supreme Court has minced no words in criticising the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for its ‘high handedness’ and ‘inhuman conduct’ during an interrogation, which went on for nearly 15 hours, of former Haryana Congress MLA Surender Panwar.
The matter came up before a bench comprising justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih. The bench said it was an "inhuman conduct" on the part of officers of the central agency, as it was not a terror case, but rather an alleged illegal sand mining.
"This is not the way to treat people in such a case. You have virtually forced a person to make a statement," said the bench, while upholding the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s September decision to quash the arrest of Panwar in a money laundering case related to illegal mining. The ED had moved the apex court against the High Court order.
The ED arrested Panwar in July at 1.40 am after undergoing nearly 15 hours of questioning. The bench junked the central agency’s plea against the High Court order, saying it is not inclined to interfere “with the finding of the High Court that the arrest of the respondent was illegal”.
The ED’s counsel contended before the apex court that the High Court had inaccurately noted that Panwar was questioned continuously for 14 hours and 40 minutes, instead breaks, which included a dinner break, were provided during the interrogation. The counsel contended that the agency had already implemented measures to prevent overnight questioning.
The apex court made it clear that its remarks, as well as those of the High Court, were regarding the bail proceedings and did not address the merits of the case. The apex court, in an order passed on January 2, said, “In the facts of the case peculiar to the respondent, we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of the High Court that the arrest of the respondent was illegal. The findings, which are rendered by the High Court are only for the purposes of deciding the issue whether the arrest of the respondent was illegal”.
“These findings will not affect the merits of the pending complaint under Section 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. Subject to what is observed above, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of”, said the bench.
Read more:SC Orders Restoration of a Property to the Mother 'Ill-Treated' by Her Son
