SC adjourns hearing on BRS leader K Kavitha's plea against ED summons

New Delhi [India], February 5 : The Supreme Court on Monday adjourned hearings on Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K Kavitha's plea against ED summons.
A bench of justices, Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, adjourned the hearing.
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for ED, apprised the Supreme Court that she was not appearing despite being summoned, and interim relief was granted until the next date.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for BRS leader, said that the interim relief was given on assurance of ED.
ASG Raju replied that he said that interim relief would be until the next date and cannot be for all time.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal apprised the court that the matter has to be heard.
ED had earlier assured the top court that they would not assist Kavitha's appearance before the next date of hearing.
The court was hearing Kavitha's plea against the ED summons. Kavitha is being quizzed by ED in connection with a money laundering case related to Delhi excise policy irregularities matter.
Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K Kavitha, who is the daughter of Telangana former Chief Minister K Chandrasekhar Rao, in her plea challenging the summons issued by ED against her, said as per norms a woman cannot be summoned for questioning before ED in office and her questioning should take place at her residence.
Her lawyer had argued earlier that whether she needs to be interrogated at home or in Delhi, the Court is seized of and has issued notice in similar petitions of Nalini Chidambaram and Abhishek Banerjee
ED had said that Section 160 CrPC will not apply in PMLA cases as per the Supreme Court judgement in the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary matter
In a petition filed through advocate Vandana Sehgal, Kavitha has urged the top court to quash the ED summons dated March 7 and 11 stating that asking her to appear before the agency office instead of her residence is contrary to the settled tenets of criminal jurisprudence and thus, wholly unsustainable in law being violative of the Proviso to Section 160 of CrPC.
She has also sought that all procedures carried out by ED, including those about the recording of statements, be audio or videographed in the presence of her lawyer at a visible distance inter-alia by way of installation of appropriate CCTV cameras.
She has also sought to set aside an impounding order dated March 11, 2023, and declare the seizure made thereunder null and void.
In the petition, she said, "Despite the petitioner, Kavitha not being named in the FIR, certain members of the incumbent ruling political party at the Center made scandalous statements linking the Petitioner to the Delhi Excise Policy and the said FIR."
"The political conspiracy against the petitioner (K Kavitha) unfortunately did not end with judicial intervention by way of the Suit. The Enforcement Directorate filed a remand application qua one of the accused on November 30, 2022, before the concerned Court. This remand application contained the personal contact details of the petitioner. There was no rhyme or reason to include the personal contact details of the petitioner in a remand application which did not even concern the petitioner. The act is all the more egregious considering the Petitioner is a lady," the BRS leader said.
"The subsequent events are extremely shameful and in the belief of the Petitioner, were orchestrated by the Enforcement Directorate at the behest of the members of the incumbent ruling party at the Center, as part of a larger conspiracy against the Petitioner," she added.
K Kavitha further added that the said remand application containing the contact details of the Petitioner was leaked to the media and the public.
"The remand application was shared extensively over social media. Such an act is petty, illegal, and an unfortunate reflection upon the malicious conduct of the Enforcement Directorate in consonance with the political party in power at Center," K Kavitha said.
Kavitha said that ED has also denied her request to be examined at her residence, and the probe agency made a categorical statement that "there is no provision under the PMLA for the recording of statements at any persons' residence".
"That immediately thereafter on March 8, 2023, at 11:03 pm, the Petitioner sent an email asserting her rights to be examined at her residence. However, the Petitioner after reserving her rights intimated to the Respondent that she will appear before them on March 11, 2023," Kavitha added.