The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed an application filed by Trinamool Congress Party leader, Manik Bhattacharya, challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in the teacher recruitment scam case, while an interim protection granted against coercive actions by CBI was in force.The bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Vikram Nath observed that the interim protection granted...
The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed an application filed by Trinamool Congress Party leader, Manik Bhattacharya, challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in the teacher recruitment scam case, while an interim protection granted against coercive actions by CBI was in force.
The bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Vikram Nath observed that the interim protection granted as regards CBI action cannot operate against the ED even if the underlying allegations are similar .
"While testing the legality of an arrest made by an agency otherwise empowered to take into custody a person against whom such agency considers subsistence of prima facie evidence of money laundering, we do not think a general protective order directed at another investigating agency could have insulated the petitioner from any coercive action in another proceeding stated by a different agency, even if there are factual similarities vis-à-vis the allegations."
The bench had made the observation upon noting that, in the remand application of the ED there was reference to allegations which are being investigated by the CBI, but ED's case was that incriminating documents were seized at the premises of the petitioner and evidence have been found regarding his role in money laundering and proceeds of crime.
The court also held that, "the order restraining coercive action being taken against the petitioner passed by us on 27th September 2022, which we have still directed to continue, did not operate to prevent the Enforcement Directorate from carrying on with their investigation into the allegations under the 2002 Act." Thus, the top court of the country refused to hold the arrest by the Enforcement Directorate as illegal.
The apex court also observed that, "Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act of 2002, money laundering is an independent offence and in the event that there is any allegation of the ED having acted beyond the jurisdiction or their act of arrest is not authorized by law, the petitioner would be entitled to apply before the appropriate Court of law independently." Thus, the bench allowed Manik to approach the appropriate court against the Enforcement Directorate independently.
Background
The bench heard the submissions of the Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for Bhattacharya, who submitted that he was under protective cover of the order passed by the Supreme Court and his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate was illegal as the order by the court was against one offence and ED had arrested Bhattacharya in the same offence. Refuting the argument Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for ED, submitted that ED was not a party to the writ petitions from which the proceedings before the top court arose. He had submitted that ED had initiated an independent investigation into money laundering allegations. Upon hearing the arguments advanced by both the parties the Supreme Court reserved its orders on the 18th October 2022.
Manik Bhattacharya was arrested on October 10, 2022 in the matter regarding the money laundering matter in the teacher's appointment scam. Partha Chatterjee, then then Education Minister of West Bengal and Arpita Mukherjee were arrested in July of 2022.
The Supreme Court had earlier this week stayed the Calcutta High Court order which removed him as the President of the WBBPE but refused to stay the investigations being carried out by the Central Bureau of Investigation as per the orders of the High Court.
Case : Dr. Manik Bhattacharya vs Ramesh Malik and Ors - IA 154274-154275/2022 in SLP (C) Nos. 16325-16326/2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 867
Headnotes
Summary - Protective order passed against one investigating agency cannot operate against another investigating agency even if there are factual similarities in allegations- Interim protection granted against coercive action by the CBI cannot operate against ED.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 - While testing the legality of an arrest made by an agency otherwise empowered to take into custody a person against whom such agency considers subsistence of prima facie evidence of money laundering, we do not think a general protective order directed at another investigating agency could have insulated the petitioner from any coercive action in another proceeding stated by a different agency, even if there are factual similarities vis-à-vis the allegations (Para 7)
Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 - money laundering is an independent offence- Para 7
Click here to read/download the order