'Something Wrong In ED' : ASG SV Raju Disowns ED's Affidavit, Says It's Filed Without Verification; 'Serious Matter', Says Supreme Court

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju made a startling submission before the Supreme Court on Friday (January 17) that there was something "fishy" about a counter-affidavit filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).ASG told a bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, which was considering the bail petition of an accused in a PMLA matter arising out of the alleged Chhattisgarh liquor scam, that the ED's counter-affidavit was "half-baked" and was filed without proper vetting."There is something hanky panky as far as my department is concerned. Without consultation a half-baked affidavit in counter has been filed even before we filed an appearance for it," ASG told as soon as the matter was taken.Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, for the petitioner, retorted that this appeared to be a strategy to keep the accused in jail. ASG in his turn said, "There is something fishy in the filing of the affidavit that is what I found yesterday. The affidavit was filed without being vetted by the investigatory agency, without even referring the facts to the investigating agency."The ASG's submission surprised the bench and Justice Oka told the ASG, "The counter must have been filed by your Advocate on record."ASG however said that the AoR cannot be blamed as the affidavit came from the ED. The law officer added that he has told the ED Director to institute a departmental enquiry."Kindly keep it on Tuesday. I want to check the affidavit. I personally told the Director to institute a departmental inquiry and ask the officer concerned to remain present in court today. I am sensing something fishy let me make an inquiry from my side. This type of thing should not happen in the department. The AoR is not to be blamed it has come from ED without being vetted by the proper channels," ASG submitted.Seemingly unconvinced, the bench asked how could the AoR file the affidavit without the instructions. "Advocate on Record for ED files the affidavit and now ED wants to say that it was filed without instructions how can we accept that?," Justice Oka asked."Not without instructions. It has come from the ED without verification. There is something wrong with the ED which I must say," ASG replied.The bench then passed over the matter and asked the AoR to appear. "We will consider it. This issue is also a very serious issue," Justice Oka said.When the matter was taken up on second call, the concerned AoR appeared and ASG Raju told the Court that the AoR had instructions from the Department to file the counter-affidavit. Shocked as to how ED could then seek to retract from the affidavit, Justice Oka exclaimed, "how can you disown the counter now? What is this going on?".In response, the ASG asserted that he only wished to verify the averments in the affidavit. However, the judge clarified that the counter affidavit having been filed by the AoR on instructions, the Court will not permit the same to be changed.Ultimately, the ASG conceded that the matter may be proceeded with. At this point, Justice Oka lamented the submission made by the ASG and expressed that it amounted to casting aspersions on the AoR. However, the ASG defended the AoR saying it was not his fault and the only concern was that the affidavit was not vetted by proper channels. Disagreeing, Justice Oka said,"He has to be blamed because it is his duty. If you are saying that without appropriate authority vetting, Advocate on Record has filed affidavit, then it is the greatest default committed by him."Subsequently, as the Court began to hear the petitioner, it was found that the period spent in custody in the instant case was not 18 months (as claimed earlier). Noticing the same, the bench expressed that it would have applied the ruling in Senthil Balaji's case if the custody period was over 1 yr, however, the same not being the case, the matter would require hearing. Accordingly, the case was fixed for final hearing on February 5.Case Title: ARUN PATI TRIPATHI Versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, SLP(Crl) No. 16219/2024 Click Here To Read/Download Order

'Something Wrong In ED' : ASG SV Raju Disowns ED's Affidavit, Says It's Filed Without Verification; 'Serious Matter', Says Supreme Court

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags