Former Finance Minister P Chidambaram apprehends that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) may use coercive methods in their bid to elicit responses from him..This has been stated in the rejoinder affidavit filed by him in Supreme Court in response to Enforcement Directorate in its counter-affidavit..The ED, in its reply before the Court, had stated that Chidambaram had been “completely evasive and non-cooperative” during the three instances when he was called in for questioning in relation to the INX Media case. In addition to this, the ED has also placed on record the details of the evidence which according to the agency necessitates custodial interrogation of Chidambaram..Countering the ED’s accusation of being evasive, Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi arguing for Chidambaram said in the Court today that Chidambaram had answered all questions put before him by ED. The rejoinder filed by him expresses apprehension that some coercive methods may be used against him. The affidavit reads:.“The contention that custodial interrogation is qualitatively different merely because the accused happens to be in custody of the Respondent and such an averment suggests that some coercive methods may be used by the Respondent to elicit responses.”.The apprehension of likelihood of coercive methods being used is heightened by the fact that responses to questions posed by the ED make for admissible evidence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and therefore, Chidamabaram goes on to submit that granting custody under such a situation could jeopardize his Fundamental Right..“In this context it may also be stated that any response to a questionnaire is admissible as evidence under Section 50 of the PMLA and can be used against the Petitioner in a judicial proceeding, as per the case of the Respondent. Consequently, it is even more hazardous to allow custody since that would jeopardize the constitutional right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution.”.The affidavit also submits that Courts may not grant custody of an accused when there is no recovery to be made, a point also made by Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal during the course of the hearing in Supreme Court..Chidambaram has also submitted that he owns no property abroad or any Bank Accounts overseas and has denied the allegations made in this regard by the ED concerning 17 bank accounts and 10 properties. A direction is, in fact, sought from the Court in this rejoinder to ask the ED to place on record details of the bank accounts and properties found in Chidambaram’s name..The hearing in the Supreme Court is on the petition filed by P Chidamabaram assailing the judgment of the Delhi High Court which denied him anticipatory bail in relation to the INX Media cases registered by the CBI and the ED. The petition as regards CBI was dismissed by the Supreme Court as being infructuous on account of the investigating agency arresting Chidambaram. The petition as regards case registered by the ED is currently underway before a Bench of Justices R Banumathi and AS Bopanna. The Court has granted him interim protection for the time being..[Read P Chidambaram’s Rejoinder].[Read ED’s Affidavit]
Former Finance Minister P Chidambaram apprehends that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) may use coercive methods in their bid to elicit responses from him..This has been stated in the rejoinder affidavit filed by him in Supreme Court in response to Enforcement Directorate in its counter-affidavit..The ED, in its reply before the Court, had stated that Chidambaram had been “completely evasive and non-cooperative” during the three instances when he was called in for questioning in relation to the INX Media case. In addition to this, the ED has also placed on record the details of the evidence which according to the agency necessitates custodial interrogation of Chidambaram..Countering the ED’s accusation of being evasive, Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi arguing for Chidambaram said in the Court today that Chidambaram had answered all questions put before him by ED. The rejoinder filed by him expresses apprehension that some coercive methods may be used against him. The affidavit reads:.“The contention that custodial interrogation is qualitatively different merely because the accused happens to be in custody of the Respondent and such an averment suggests that some coercive methods may be used by the Respondent to elicit responses.”.The apprehension of likelihood of coercive methods being used is heightened by the fact that responses to questions posed by the ED make for admissible evidence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and therefore, Chidamabaram goes on to submit that granting custody under such a situation could jeopardize his Fundamental Right..“In this context it may also be stated that any response to a questionnaire is admissible as evidence under Section 50 of the PMLA and can be used against the Petitioner in a judicial proceeding, as per the case of the Respondent. Consequently, it is even more hazardous to allow custody since that would jeopardize the constitutional right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution.”.The affidavit also submits that Courts may not grant custody of an accused when there is no recovery to be made, a point also made by Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal during the course of the hearing in Supreme Court..Chidambaram has also submitted that he owns no property abroad or any Bank Accounts overseas and has denied the allegations made in this regard by the ED concerning 17 bank accounts and 10 properties. A direction is, in fact, sought from the Court in this rejoinder to ask the ED to place on record details of the bank accounts and properties found in Chidambaram’s name..The hearing in the Supreme Court is on the petition filed by P Chidamabaram assailing the judgment of the Delhi High Court which denied him anticipatory bail in relation to the INX Media cases registered by the CBI and the ED. The petition as regards CBI was dismissed by the Supreme Court as being infructuous on account of the investigating agency arresting Chidambaram. The petition as regards case registered by the ED is currently underway before a Bench of Justices R Banumathi and AS Bopanna. The Court has granted him interim protection for the time being..[Read P Chidambaram’s Rejoinder].[Read ED’s Affidavit]
