Bombay High Court hints at threat to democracy if central agencies don't act independently

Bombay High Court hints at threat to democracy if central agencies don't act independently

The Bombay High Court (HC) said that the judiciary and agencies like the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) are considered independent and therefore should act impartially HC division bench of Justices S.S. Shinde and Manish Pitale heard a petition filed by Eknath Khadse (petitioner) on 22 January 2021 seeking to quash an ED complaint registered against him in October last year.

The facts of the case are that the Petitioner quit the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in October 2020 and joined the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP). He appeared before the ED in Mumbai on 15 January 2021 to record his statement regarding the alleged land grab case, pursuant to the summons issued against him.

The ED filed an affidavit in reply to the petition of Khadse and it said that an initial investigation has clearly revealed various pieces of evidence showing money laundering in this case. The ED claimed the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) was registered in October 2020 against the petitioner; his wife Mandakini Khadse and son-in-law Girish Choudhari in the alleged land grab case in Pune, for causing a loss of Rs 62 crore to the public exchequer.

It was alleged by the ED that the land was purchased at a low rate of Rs 3.75 crore by the petitioner and his family members with a criminal intent to seek compensation from the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC), which was to acquire the land in future.

It was further stated that the petitioner has misused his official position that he held in 2016 as the State Revenue Minister. The ED in its affidavit mentioned that the Court has not yet accepted the closure report and hence, the FIR is not closed.

The Counsel of the petitioner in the interim relief sought protection from any coercive action against his client. He also further sought an audio-video recording of the interrogation based on the summons issued against the petitioner.

The Counsel of ED, Anil Singh, told the Court that the agency would not take any action till 25 January 2021. It was further stated that his statement should not be recorded.

Justice Shinde said, "We have always believed that the judiciary and agencies like the RBI, CBI, ED, should act independently and impartially." The Court further added, "There is a threat to the very democracy if these agencies do not act independently."

Justice Shinde asked the ED why was there so much insistence that no interim protection should be granted. He asked "What is the harm making a solemn statement on record? What do I tell my lords if he is arrested?"

Justice further said that whenever Singh made a statement, he has abided by it. Singh added that if an order were passed it would set a wrong precedent.

The division bench questioned the need for the arrest of the petitioner when he was willing to cooperate with the investigation. The bench further asked, "If someone is ready to cooperate and honour the summons, we pose the question to ourselves, what is the reason to arrest?"

Anil Singh added, "Co-operation during the investigation could be considered if this is an anticipatory bail application, not when he is seeking quashing of the complaint. I have an objection to the maintainability of this petition. The Court will then need to make a prima facie observation that no case is made out."