As the Supreme Court asked, ‘Ed wants to be used for political fight’, Solicitor General says ‘concerted efforts to make a story against the institution’

The observation came in three cases, including the first Karnataka Chief Minister Siddharamia’s wife BM Parvati and Minister Bireti Suresh, who were in connection with the alleged illegal allocation of sites by the Massuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA), and some senior advocates to be present for their customers.

Karnataka Muda Case

Crossing the appeal of Ed against the order of the Karnataka High Court, CJI Gavai, while reducing the summons to Parvati and Suresh, told Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, who had appeared for the investigating agency, “Mr. Raju, please ask us to open their mouths. Experience with ED in Maharashtra.”

As Raju referred to a linked argument about the big conspiracy, the bench expressed reluctance in entertaining and said, “You no longer beat the virus across the country. Let the political battle be fought in front of voters. You are being used as a …”.

“In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any error in the logic adopted by the single judge learned. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is dismissed.”

The court agreed to Raju’s request that the order should not be considered as an example. “Thanks to save some rigorous comments,” CJI asked Raju after determining the order.

Summons to lawyers

After a while, the bench petitions whether a lawyer who gives an opinion can be called in connection with the investigation. The petitions were filed to senior advocates Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal on the ED notice on the investigation involving their customers.

Later notices were withdrawn. In a spherical, Ed said, “No summon will be issued to any lawyer in a violation of Section 132 of Indian Sakya Adhikar, 2023.” The agency also said that, where necessary, it will do so with the prior approval of its director.

Present for the Supreme Court Bar Association, senior advocate Vikas Singh said, “Ed has now come out with a circular, which says the lawyers will no longer be called. But it will not apply to CBI, etc.

Senior advocate Vijay Hansaria said that some guidelines are required in the case.

Pressing for the direction, Singh said, “If a lawyer is not free to give advice and he feels that giving advice can also be called for investigation … then it will have a cool effect on the full justice distribution system.”

Senior advocate Mukul Rohtgi said that such a “advice may be correct, advice may be wrong”. To which, CJI Gawai said, “Even if it is wrong, it is a privileged communication. How can you be called by ED?”.

“Not of course,” Attorney General R Venkatarmani replied. “I think for all matters, we should appoint guidelines,” CJI Gavai said, and turning to AG, he said, “Your officials are crossing all borders.”

CJI recalled the matter that his bench had raised earlier and said, “In two cases, we had to tell Raju, if you open your mouth, we have to say a lot about Ed.”

Intervening, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said, “As far as the issue is concerned, the lawyers, as AG said, cannot be called to give an opinion. There is a general observation … sometimes wrongly … what happens, what happens, I am saying this, Ed is not telling, Ed is not a solid effort to form a story against an institution.”

Urked against the generalization, he said that if there is overseasing by the ED, the court would intervene. “We are finding it in many cases …” CJI said.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said, “Please do not keep that impression based on the interview and YouTube show. There is a story building together.”

CJI said that he was speaking from experience. “Not from interview. My experience from family courts … Justice Gawai said,” Unfortunately, on the first day (week), I had two cases from two political parties, and we said that it is not political. “

‘Do not try to politicize before the court’

Earlier in the day, the CJI bench gave two petitions. One of them started criminal contempt against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, which was on her comment on the top court’s decision in the recruitment scam case. The other Karnataka government had challenged a criminal case filed against BJP MP Tejasavi Surya to comment on a farmer’s alleged suicide.

In the first, CJI Gawai said, “Don’t try to politicize before the court; your political battle, you should fight elsewhere after 4 weeks.”

In the case of Tejasvi Surya case, the court said, “What is this? Do not politicize the matter. Fight your battle before the voters.”

Stating that he was not especially mentioning any political party, Mehta said, “Sometimes, and I am not in any political party, if I am a politician, but if I am involved in a 3000 crore scam, I can make a story in my favor by many interviews, etc.”

CJI Gavai said, “Unfortunately, we all know the ground reality.”

Mehta said, “But the ground reality has to be seen from the facts presented, available, from evidence, from the available material.”

“Therefore, we are not observing any without hearing …” said CJI.

“This is what I am saying. Sometimes broad observation creates a misconception …” said Mehta.

The CJI said, “We are not praising ED, which has been recorded in a decision by one of the judges learned in an concurrent opinion for the ED.”

“Your Lordship will neither comment nor criticize. It will be based on the facts,” SG Mehta said.

Apparently agreed, CJI Gawai said, “It all depends on the facts”.

Storytelling

SG Mehta said that such a story building “Before listening to any case before your Lordship, forget to interview Ed etc.”

The CJI said, “We have seen in so many cases that the Ed is filing an appeal after the Ed appeal even after the well -made order by HC, only to file.”

Mehta said, “Forget Ed, I am on a widespread issue. Before any case reaches its dominance of any importance …”

“We don’t read newspapers. And at least youtube interview, my brother and I don’t have time to see,” CJI Gawai said.

SG Mehta said, “There are other media, and the story building is starting. It is very objectively designed, very designed.”

He urged the court to take cognizance of this and fulfill the guidelines, saying that the question is “I can build a story outside the court in political matters while representing a customer?” “This is a question of law. I am not on Ed.”

Justice Chandran asked whether it could be said that the bench would be affected by such narratives. “How do you think this story will be impressed if we don’t see it at all. Stories will go there. People may be worried. But you cannot say that we will be affected by it.”

CJI Gawai asked, “Have you seen any of our decisions based on stories, and not on the facts of that case. If there is any decision, please show me.”

Mehta said, “I am in front of the court first, not only two honorable judges. As a proposal, I am saying. Not whether the Chief Justice will be affected or justice will be Chandran … but as a proposal, is it appropriate? And I am not on ED.”

He reiterated that “as far as lawyers are concerned, they cannot be called to give legal opinion.”

Present for the Supreme Court Advocate on Record Association (SCORA), Advocate Vipin Nair said, “It is not just a senior advocate, it is also a general lawyer who is affected by it. He is a lawyer as a class.”

Mehta recalled an incident in Ahmedabad, where an accused, after killing, approached his lawyer and discussed the body’s disposal.

CJI said that it would be a crime to commit a crime under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).