New Delhi: Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Abhishek Banerjee, challenging the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case, contended before the Supreme Court that it would have to examine whether the central agency can assume a pan-India jurisdiction and summon any person at any place of their choice, under the purported garb of Section 50 of the PMLA, and there is no procedure for summoning a witness or an accused in a PMLA.
Banerjee, who represents the Diamond Harbour seat in Lok Sabha, stressed that this would be an utter derogation of the fundamental rights of the person.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Banerjee, argued before a bench comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma. Sibal vehemently argued that a procedure should exist, established by law, to summon an accused. In September 2021, the ED issued a summons to Banerjee and his wife.
"In the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) there is no procedure, so lack of procedure becomes a procedure. There is no procedure for summoning a witness or an accused in a PMLA," said Sibal.
He stressed that the government will have to demonstrate that there is a procedure that they are following that is established by law and is reasonable.
During the hearing, the bench told Sibal that his client may have responded to the summons but did not remain present. Sibal replied that his client had appeared in Delhi and Kolkata. Additional solicitor general S V Raju, appearing for ED, said they are misleading investigation and monies have been sent to Thailand.
Sibal said wherever the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is silent, CrPC will apply and that is the proposition. He stressed that the second proposition is that under Article 21, no person can be deprived of liberty save by the procedure established by law. Sibal said the procedure has to be reasonable and insisted that there's no procedure for summoning an accused under PMLA, and this issue is pending before a larger bench.
Sibal argued that the court would have to examine whether the ED can assume a pan-India jurisdiction and summon any person at any place of their choice, under the purported garb of Section 50 of the PMLA. He emphasised that if this were to happen then it would be in utter derogation of the fundamental rights of the person.
The hearing in the matter will continue tomorrow. Banerjee and his wife Rujira Banerjee moved the top court challenging a Delhi High Court order, which declined to quash summons issued by the ED against them in connection with a money laundering probe linked to an alleged coal scam in West Bengal.
Banerjees have challenged the ED summons on the grounds that they should not be required to appear in New Delhi but in their home town in Kolkata.
