The Supreme Court's observation not only questions the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) role but also underscores the imperative for agencies to respect fundamental rights while conducting investigations.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court issued a stern rebuke to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) during a hearing, reminding it of constitutional values. A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan sharply reacted to a petition filed by the ED in connection with the NAN (Nagrik Aapurti Nigam) scam case. The Court stated that if the ED considers itself a protector of fundamental rights, it must also respect the rights of ordinary citizens.
Questions Raised on Delhi Transfer Petition
The ED had filed a petition seeking the transfer of the NAN scam case from Chhattisgarh to Delhi. Simultaneously, the agency also appealed for the cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to some accused. During the hearing, when Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, representing the ED, argued that the ED also enjoys fundamental rights, the Court retorted, implying that if the agency possesses such rights, it shouldn't forget that ordinary citizens possess the same rights.
Petition Withdrawal
Following the Supreme Court's sharp remarks, the ED had to seek permission to withdraw its petition, which the bench granted. The Court also questioned the basis on which an investigating agency could invoke Article 32 of the Constitution, given that writ petitions are typically filed by individuals under this article.
Significance of the Case
This case transcends a mere legal dispute; it highlights the crucial balance between fundamental rights and the constitutional limitations on investigating agencies. The Supreme Court's stance clarifies that investigating agencies must respect citizens' rights while exercising their powers. The roots of the NAN (Nagrik Aapurti Nigam) scam emerged in 2015 when Chhattisgarh's Anti-Corruption Bureau raided offices linked to the Public Distribution System (PDS), recovering unaccounted cash of ₹3.64 crore.
The investigation also revealed that the quality of rice and salt meant for distribution was unfit for human consumption. At that time, Anil Tuteja and Alok Shukla were the Chairman and Managing Director of NAN, respectively.
ED's Arguments and the Controversy
The ED alleged that Tuteja and other accused had misused anticipatory bail. The agency claimed that some constitutional functionaries had also contacted High Court judges to obtain judicial relief. These circumstances prompted the agency's request to transfer the case outside Chhattisgarh.
