A view of the Supreme Court of India.
| Photo Credit: ANI
The Supreme Court on May 6 sought a report from the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) even as the State of Tamil Nadu maintained that District Collectors have appeared before the Central agency and supplied it with records about illegal sand mining sought from them by the anti-money laundering body in its summons.
Appearing before a Bench headed by Justice Bela Trivedi, senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Amit Anand Tiwari, for Tamil Nadu, complained that the senior officials were made to remain at the ED office from 11 a.m. to 8.30 pm.
“They are District Collectors. They cannot do this to these senior officials,” Mr. Sibal submitted.
Meanwhile, the ED said “no documents or details” were given by the District Collectors to the Central agency.
“Whatever requisite documents asked from the Collectors have been submitted,” Mr. Sibal countered.
The Bench directed the ED to file a compliance report, detailing the documents sought from the Collectors in the summons and what among these records were allegedly not produced by them.
The court also took exception to the long hours the ED made the officials remain in its office. The ED counsel said it would convey the court’s displeasure to the agency.
The court posted the case for further hearing after summer vacations in July.
In the previous hearing on April 2, the court had ordered the four Collectors of Vellore, Ariyalur, Karur and Trichy to be present in person before the ED on April 25 while listing the case for hearing on May 6.
The April 2 hearing had seen the court castigate the four Tamil Nadu District Collectors for failing to appear in person in response to a summons issued to them by the anti-money laundering body.
The court had insisted on the Collectors’ personal presence at the ED office despite submissions made by both the Tamil Nadu government and the officials that they had written to the agency expressing their inability to appear in person owing to the fact that the general elections in Tamil Nadu was due on April 19 and they needed more time to collect the information sought by the Central agency about sand mining sites in their respective districts. The Collectors had explained that the information sought was not in their offices, but had to be collected from other branches of the district administration, verified and collated to be presented before the ED.
However, the court had refused to accept the Collectors’ explanation.
Justice Trivedi had said their conduct showed scant respect for the apex court’s order on February 27 to appear in person before the ED on whatever date it summoned them.
Justice Trivedi had explained that 50(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act empowered the ED to summon “any person” whose attendance was considered necessary for giving evidence or production of records in the course of “any investigation or proceeding” under the statute.
Section 50(3) mandated that the individual summoned was “bound to attend in person or through authorised agents” and would be required to make truthful statements and produce the required documents.
