Jahanvi Agarwal
The Madras High Court declared on Friday that the Enforcement Directorate has the right to ask for custody of Tamil Nadu minister V Senthil Balaji in a money-laundering case.
Following a split decision by the division bench consisting of Justices Nisha Banu and Bharatha Chakravarthy on a plea challenging the arrest of Balaji, the case was referred to Justice CV Karthikeyan, who was the third judge to hear it.
His wife claimed that the Enforcement Directorate had imprisoned her husband without a warrant. Balaji had been arrested by the central agency on June 14 on suspicion of plotting with Transport Corporation officials to nominate candidates suggested by his advisers.
Balaji reported having a cardiac condition after being arrested, and he is presently being treated at the Kauvery Hospital in Chennai. On June 21, he had a bypass surgery.
Justice Karthikeyan disallowed the release of Balaji on Friday. And pronounced that:
“The fact that respondents can take custody for further investigation cannot be denied. The respondent, in this case, had a right to get custody. I would align my opinion with the reason given by Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy in this aspect.”
Senior Attorney Kapil Sibal’s argument on behalf of the petitioner was that the employees of the Enforcement Directorate are not police officers, which was accepted by Justice Karthikeyan. However, the judge pointed out that Balaji had been remanded to judicial custody by the session court, which is when the term “detenu” became “accused.”
The Court further pointed out that Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits remanding an accused person to “such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit” for the first 15 days and makes no distinction between “police custody” and “judicial custody.”
“But no accused has a right to frustrate inquiry. Even prior to his ill health, the accused refused to accept grounds of arrest and then claimed he was not provided grounds of arrest. This cannot be considered by this court. It must be declared a falsity…. when arrest is possible, then seeking custody is also permissible.”
Thereafter, Justice Karthikeyan requested the Registry to bring the case to the Chief Justice’s bench so that his view might be taken into account when making a final decision. Justice Banu had ruled in the split decision that the Enforcement Directorate lacked authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act to request police detention.
It was observed that the money-laundering statute requires officers of the Enforcement Directorate who have been granted the authority to make arrests to deliver the suspect to the appropriate court within 24 hours of the arrest and to only ask for judicial remand.
The petition did not establish a case to show that Balaji’s arrest was unlawful, according to Justice Chakravarthy, who disagreed with the senior judge’s point of view. The judge also permitted the Enforcement Directorate to deduct the time spent receiving therapy from the time he was held in detention.