The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Enforcement Directorate, Karnataka government and an NGO to fight “your political battles outside the court” as it heard three petitions targeting politicians from different parties.
The petitioners’ targets were Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee (Trinamool) in the state’s teacher recruitment scam, Karnataka chief minister Siddaramaiah’s (Congress) wife B.M. Parvathi in a land allotment controversy, and BJP parliamentarian Tejasvi Surya in a “fake news” case.
Threatening “very harsh” comments against the ED, Chief Justice B.R. Gavai asked why the central agency was letting itself be “used for” fighting “political battles” and asked it not to “perpetuate this violence across the country”.
The remarks come at a time the ED has been accused of harassing critics and political opponents of the NDA government.
On the petition against Mamata, Gavai orally told senior advocate Maninder Singh: “Don’t try to politicise the issue before the court. You should fight your political battles somewhere else, outside the court.”
Singh was appearing for the public charitable trust Aatmdeep, which was seeking contempt proceedings against Mamata for her alleged remarks against the apex court after it upheld the sacking of 25,000-odd school staff over a “vitiated” recruitment process.
Although the petition had been listed for hearing, Singh requested the court for a deferment saying the necessary permission for prosecuting the chief minister was being sought from the attorney-general.
This prompted the bench, which included Justice Vinod Chandran, to ask: “Are you so sure you will get the consent? We should dismiss it right away now. Don’t politicise such cases. Political battles you can fight outside the court.”
The bench adjourned the hearing by four weeks.
Hearing another matter, the bench pulled up the ED for appealing a Karnataka High Court judgment that had set aside the money-laundering proceedings initiated against Siddaramaiah’s wife Parvathi and urban development minister Byrathi Suresh.
The charges were related to the allegedly illegal allotment of 14 prime plots of land to Parvathi by the Mysore Urban Development Authority in lieu of its acquisition of 3.2 acres of land from her.
“Mr Raju, unfortunately I have some experience in Maharashtra,” Justice Gavai, who hails from Maharashtra, told additional solicitor-general S.V. Raju, appearing for the central agency.
“Please do not force us to say something. Otherwise, we have to say something very harsh about the Enforcement Directorate. But we don’t want to open our mouths now. You don’t perpetuate this violence across the country now.”
Justice Gavai added: “Let political battles be fought among the electorate. Why are you (ED) being used for it?”
Sensing the court’s mood, Raju immediately offered to withdraw the appeal.
“Okay, Lordships, then I will withdraw, but let this case not be treated as a precedent,” he requested.
The bench then passed an order refusing to interfere with the high court order. It said the order was being passed keeping in mind the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, indicating it would not be treated as a precedent.
“We should thank Mr Raju for ensuring that we avoid some harsh words,” the bench observed orally.
In the third case, the bench slammed the Karnataka government for challenging a state high court order that had quashed a criminal case against Surya for allegedly spreading “fake news” about a purported farmer suicide in Haveri district.
“What is this? Don’t politicise the matter. Fight your battles before the electorate. Dismissed,” the bench said, imposing costs on the state government for filing the appeal.
Hearing a fourth case — a continuing one — the bench expressed shock at the ED issuing summons to lawyers appearing for their clients in money-laundering cases.
The court, which had last month taken suo motu cognisance of the matter, said it would lay down guidelines for the agency.
Attorney-general R. Venkataramani and solicitor-general Tushar Mehta, both representing the Centre, told the bench that the ED had already issued a circular asking its officers to desist from summoning or questioning lawyers in such cases.