 |
|
The Supreme Court of India has raised serious concerns about the fairness of investigations conducted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the alleged Delhi liquor policy case. The court's observations, which could significantly impact future hearings, center around the agencies' reliance on statements provided by former accused individuals who have become prosecution witnesses, known as 'approvers'.
The court, led by Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, questioned the practice of solely relying on such statements for incriminating evidence. They argued that the agencies cannot selectively use these testimonies to target individuals, emphasizing the need for more concrete evidence to support the claims made by these approvers. This sentiment arose during a hearing regarding the bail plea of Bharat Rashtra Samithi leader K Kavitha, who was arrested by the ED and the CBI in March and April respectively.
The prosecution, represented by Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, argued against Kavitha's release, citing 'independent evidence' from former accused individuals, Bucchi Babu and Raghav Magunta Reddy, who turned into government witnesses after receiving pardons. However, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Kavitha, countered that these statements had been used as 'evidence' in related cases, including those involving Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. The court, recognizing this pattern, stressed the need for direct evidence beyond approver statements to establish a person's involvement in a crime.
The court's stance aligns with previous decisions regarding bail applications filed by Kejriwal and former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, who were also subject to investigations based heavily on approver testimonies. The court, in granting Sisodia bail earlier this month, noted the prolonged detention without the prospect of a trial constituted a 'travesty of justice'. Kejriwal, who remains in jail despite receiving bail in the ED case, has also challenged the charges against him based on approver statements.
The court also dismissed the prosecution's claim that Kavitha deleted incriminating content from her mobile phones by formatting them. They reasoned that phone formatting is a routine act, not necessarily indicative of criminal activity. The court emphasized the need for independent data to support the prosecution's claim, arguing that mere phone formatting does not automatically imply the presence of incriminating evidence.
Following the court's interrogation of the agencies' practices, Kavitha was granted bail. The court, acknowledging her extended detention without a trial, recognized that continued imprisonment would violate her fundamental rights. Notably, the court also pointed out legal provisions in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act that allow for the release on bail of certain categories of accused, including women, without requiring specific conditions. The prosecution's argument that Kavitha, being a well-educated former MP, was not a 'vulnerable' person, was dismissed by the court. They stated that a woman's education or social standing should not preclude her from receiving bail.
The Supreme Court's scrutiny of the liquor policy case, particularly its emphasis on the need for independent evidence beyond approver statements, highlights the importance of fair and rigorous investigations. The court's decisions regarding bail applications, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial and the potential for violations of fundamental rights with prolonged detention, contribute to a more balanced and just legal framework.
Source: "What Is This 'Fairness'?" Top Court To Probe Agencies In Liquor Policy Case