ED faces Supreme Court's backlash for fighting 'political battles'
PTC News Desk: The Supreme Court on Monday reprimanded the Enforcement Directorate and refused to entertain its plea challenging the Karnataka High Court’s order that quashed money laundering proceedings against Parvathi Siddaramaiah, wife of Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah.
Granting relief, the apex court upheld the High Court’s decision and questioned the motives behind the ED’s actions, remarking, “Let political battles be fought amongst the electorate… why are you being used for it?"
Chief Justice BR Gavai also warned the probe agency, saying “Don’t force us to say something… otherwise, we’ll have to say something harsh about ED."
The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against a Karnataka High Court ruling that had dismissed money laundering charges against BM Parvathi, wife of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, and Karnataka Urban Development Minister Byrathi Suresh.
The case involves allegations of unlawful site allotments by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA). On March 7, the High Court had upheld the trial court’s decision to nullify the ED’s proceedings.
The Supreme Court also took up a suo motu case regarding the Enforcement Directorate (ED) issuing summons to senior advocates over legal advice provided to their clients. Multiple legal associations, including the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), the In-House Lawyers Association, and others, filed intervention applications in the matter.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh argued before the bench that the ED’s actions were having a "chilling effect" on the legal profession. Citing international instances, he said, “In Turkey, the entire bar association was dissolved. We’ve seen similar trends in China. We must not follow that path. Clear guidelines need to be established.”
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud concurred, stating, “Even if the legal advice provided is incorrect, how can a lawyer be summoned? This is privileged communication. Guidelines are indeed necessary.”
- With inputs from agencies
