Mahua Moitra FEMA Probe: ED Denies Leaking Any Information To Media, Delhi High Court Reserves Judgment

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Thursday told the Delhi High Court that it has not given any press release or leaked any information to the media in relation to the investigation against Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA).

ED's counsel, on instructions, told Justice Subramonium Prasad that the probe agency is not aware about the sources of the news articles published by the media houses in relation to the pending investigation.

The court reserved the orders for tomorrow on Moitra's plea to restrain ED from leaking any “confidential or unverified information” to the media in relation to the investigation against her.

Moitra has also sought to restrain 19 media houses from publishing and circulating any unverified, unconfirmed, false, derogatory content in relation to the pending investigation against her.

Some of the media houses include ANI, Hindustan Times, Indian Express, Times of India, India Today, NDTV, The Hindu, The Print etc.

Moitra was expelled from the Lok Sabha in December last year following the Ethics panel's determination of her guilt in the 'cash-for-query' case. ED issued summons to Moitra under FEMA on February 14 and 20.

Senior Advocate Rebecca John appearing for Moitra submitted that leakage of sensitive information relating to the pending investigation to the media prior to it being communicated to her is prejudicial to her rights protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

“I was summoned. I have no difficulty in that. They have the right to summon me. I was summoned for the first time on February 14. That summon was received at the Calcutta residence which is unoccupied by me. Much before I start, news articles began to say that she has been summoned,” John said.

Justice Prasad referred to one of the news articles and said: “You're a public personality, a public person. In any case…. It is only a factual assertion.”

John then submitted that even though the second summons was issued to her on February 20, news articles regarding the same began to be published from February 19.

The court then questioned Moitra as to how the information about her petition moving to the High Court was published in the media before the hearing.

To this, John responded: “I don't know. I didn't ask them….This is what I am saying. I am being hounded. They've asked me for lot of material. Tomorrow I'll give material to them. Will that also come in the media?”

“We'll see then. As of now nothing,” Justice Prasad said.

“Look at the atmosphere you're creating before I even go there. This is prejudicial. If they are not giving it, how is the information coming? Is this permissible? Do I not have Article 21 rights? The same kind of orders are passed by other courts in other cases,” John said.

ANI's counsel, Advocate Siddhant Kumar, told court that the prayers made in the plea have a chilling effect on free speech and that the news agency is entitled to publish source based information.

“Press is since antiquity reporting based on sources. Large amount of scams are exposed from that,” he said.

After hearing the parties, the court reserved the orders.

The plea seeks a direction on the media houses that all news reporting and publication against Moitra are in tune with the official press releases that may be issued by ED in relation to the FEMA investigation.

Furthermore, Moitra has prayed that during the pendency of the plea, ED and media houses must be restrained from leaking, publishing or broadcasting of any information related to the ongoing FEMA investigation.

It is Moitra's case that instead of undertaking a fair, transparent and ethical investigation into the alleged violations of the FEMA by her, ED has wilfully and maliciously leaked the details of the summons, as well as her preliminary response to the media.

She has said that ED intends to subject her to a media-trial by leaking sensitive particulars, which not only prejudices the investigation but also tarnishes her reputation in the public eye.

The plea states that such leakage of information has hampered the process of the investigation and also violated Moitra's rights i.e. Right to privacy, dignity and her Right to fair investigation.

It further adds that the media has already been running news articles and reports with respect to ongoing investigation in an “unfettered manner” which creates an adverse public perception against her.

“Such reporting of the matters in which the investigation is still going on, creates a false/incorrect narrative, thereby, prejudicing the right of fair investigation of the Petitioner,” the plea states.

The petition has been moved by Advocates Samudra Sarangi and Shruti Rana.

Moitra had been accused of receiving cash in exchange for posing questions on behalf of businessman and friend Darshan Hiranandani. In an interview with The Indian Express, she had accepted the fact that she had provided her Parliament login and password details to Hiranandani, however, she had refuted the claim of receiving any cash from him.

She has also filed a defamation case against Dehadrai and BJP MP Nishikant Dubey before the Delhi High Court in connection with the dispute. Judgment is reserved in the matter on interim relief.

Recently, a coordinate bench refused to stay the eviction order issued to Moitra asking her to vacate the government bungalow.

Title: MAHUA MOITRA v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ORS.