Court raps ED for inhuman approach, allows Naresh Goyal to meet family while in private hospital

MUMBAI: A special Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court has rapped the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for adopting an inhuman approach and allowed Jet Airways founder Naresh Goyal to avail the services of a personal attendant and family visits during his stay at a private hospital in the city.

Goyal filed an application last week requesting permission to meet his family members at HN Reliance Hospital, Girgaon, where he is undergoing treatment. Additionally, Goyal sought approval to avail himself of the services of a personal attendant and to permit him to consult and get legal assistance from his lawyers.

This plea came weeks after Goyal’s cancer was detected and confirmed by the medical board of the JJ Hospital. On March 1, the PMLA court rejected Goyal’s application for interim medical bail for six months but allowed him to be admitted to Tata Memorial Hospital or any other hospital of his choice under escort for two months.

In his order special judge MG Deshpande criticised the ED for drawing a premature conclusion, and holding Goyal guilty, forgetting the celebrated basic principle of criminal jurisprudence that “The accused is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt, that too at the end of the trial”.

The ED opposed the application contending that the supplicant exercised his option and preferred a privately run hospital for his treatment where all the necessary facilities and amenities were provided.

“The hospital itself is permitting for the family to visit strictly for a limited time which should be in connivance with guidelines and policies which the hospitals follow with regard to the hospital visiting hours,” the ED said, adding that there was no requirement of a personal attendant as necessary care, and precautions were being taken by the hospital authorities.

“The appointment of private attendant would make it difficult to screen or discipline them and the graveness of the present case should not be neglected,” the ED stated, highlighting that the applicant had been admitted without prior intimation to the agency or the court.

“This court has already passed numerous facilitating orders in the past giving due consideration to his old age and health condition, including access to home-cooked food. Therefore, such liberties may be misused, causing severe hindrance to ongoing investigations conducted by law enforcement agencies,” the agency argued.

The court disapproved the approach and rapped ED for opposing a humane prayer in such an unusual way and specifically noted the language used by the agency in its reply to the application, implying that wild allegations had been made by the agency.

The special judge slammed ED saying that if the agency had any grievances with past orders, then it should have challenged them before the High Court instead of making such comments and allegations in their submission.

“This Court has addressed all objections raised by the ED and endeavored to maintain a balance while considering the prayers made by the applicant, who is 75 years old and suffering from cancer. Therefore, the phrase ‘numerous facilitating orders’ should not have been used by the ED without challenging those orders before the High Court and keeping in mind that the court grants or rejects a relief claimed for and not facilities,” reprimanded the judge.

The court objected to the agency’s allegation that the applicant was admitted without prior intimation to the ED and stated that the thought behind directing ‘forthwith hospitalisation’ was to control cancer from spreading all over the body, hence, ED should not have a grievance for the same.

Considering the objections raised by the agency to Goyal’s request for a personal attendant, the judge also questioned ED whether Goyal’s ailing wife, who herself is suffering from cancer, and his daughter with health issues, were expected to care for him in the hospital.

“The individual who has recently undergone prostate surgery and is being treated for cancer requires assistance from a male person to attend to his basic daily natural needs. Can his daughter or wife fulfill this role in the hospital?” questioned the judge and noted that the ED had no answer to this.

The court further drew attention to the gravity of the applicant’s deteriorating health and criticised ED for opposing such a humane prayer. “By opposing a humane prayer in such an extremely unusual way, does the ED want to suggest the installation of CCTV cameras inside the toilet and bathroom where the applicant is admitted and receiving cancer treatment?”