ED can interrogate me in prison, Balaji tells SC
Tamil Nadu minister V Senthil Balaji on Tuesday that nothing prevented the ED from interrogating him in the hospital during his 15-day remand beginning June 14 while he was hospitalised for bypass surgery
New Delhi: Tamil Nadu minister V Senthil Balaji arrested in the cash-for-jobs scam by the Enforcement Directorate told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that nothing prevented the ED from interrogating him in the hospital during his 15-day remand beginning June 14 while he was hospitalised for bypass surgery. Having chosen not to do so, he added that the agency will have to interrogate him in jail where he is currently lodged and cannot again seek his custody as the 15-day period mandated under law is over.
Making the arguments on behalf of Balaji, senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Mukul Rohatgi took the Court through the provisions of law and various judgments of the top court to show that the order of the Madras high court on July 4 and July 14 allowing ED to take his custody was bad in law.
Sibal said, “There is no constitutional right for an investigating agency to interrogate at a specific place. While he (Balaji) was in hospital, you could have taken him to another room and interrogated. The fact remains they had an order of remand. For whatever reason, those chose not to execute it. After the 15-day period has expired, now they cannot have his custody.”
Under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) the police has power to take a person accused of an offence in their custody for a maximum period of 15 days. Sibal said that once this period is over, then the accused has to be sent to judicial remand in jail. In the present case, although ED had obtained Magistrate’s order for police custody on June 14, due to the minister’s hospitalisation they could not interrogate him in this condition and sought to set off the period of hospitalization from the 15-day remand period.
Rohatgi, who appeared for Balaji’s wife, who too had filed a petition in the HC challenging her husband’s arrest, said, “There is no bar to interrogate in judicial custody. It is not that there is any golden period for interrogation. The law does not provide for any exclusion during the 15-day period even if there is illness or any other emergency. Once the clock starts to tick, the clock cannot stop.”
He further stated that the agency cannot claim to have a right to interrogate. “The only right available is speedy investigation. The law does not admit any exclusion from the 15-day period on account of unforeseen emergency as these are matters of human liberty.”
As arguments of the petitioners concluded, the bench of justices AS Bopanna and MM Sundresh asked ED to make submissions. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta who appeared for the ED sought to open arguments on Wednesday. As the matter had been substantially heard, the bench directed the Registry to obtain permission from the chief justice of India (CJI) to constitute the same bench on Wednesday to conclude arguments in the matter.
Balaji, who is currently a Minister in the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam government in Tamil Nadu, was arrested on charges of accepting bribes while serving as Transport Minister in the AIADMK-led government from persons seeking jobs in the state transport department between 2011 and 2015. On May 16, the Supreme Court had allowed the ED to proceed with the investigation against him that led to his arrest in the case.
He claimed that since ED cannot be equated to “police officer”, the ED can arrest him and interrogate him but not keep him in custody as this power is available only to a police officer. In his petition, he stated that prevention of money laundering Act (PMLA) is a regulatory law which does not empower officers to keep a person in custody as to do so, ED must be equated with an officer in charge of a police station where the person accused of an offence under PMLA is to be kept.
Balaji had argued this before the high court to set aside the order of Magistrate granting his custody to ED. On July 4, the HC gave a split verdict with Justice D Bharath Chakravarthy ruling in favour of ED while justice Nisha Banu holding the minister’s custody to be illegal. The matter went to a third judge, justice CV Karthikeyan who in his decision of July 14 sided with justice Chakravarthy’s opinion. The matter went back to the earlier bench it refused to pass any order and left the final consideration on this issue to the top court.
