Supreme Court Deprecates TN District Collectors' Refusal To Appear Before ED, Says They Showed Disrespect To Court & Constitution
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (April 2) chastised the District Collectors of Tamil Nadu who refused to appear in person before the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in pursuance to the summons issued by the central agency to them for investigating the money laundering case arising from the illegal sand mining activities.Strongly deprecating the District Collectors for their "cavalier approach",...
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (April 2) chastised the District Collectors of Tamil Nadu who refused to appear in person before the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in pursuance to the summons issued by the central agency to them for investigating the money laundering case arising from the illegal sand mining activities.
Strongly deprecating the District Collectors for their "cavalier approach", the Court stated in its order that their conduct showed that "the officers don't have either respect for the Court or the law much less the Constitution of India."
On February 27, the Supreme Court had lifted a stay imposed by the Madras High Court on the ED summons and directed that the "Collectors shall appear and respond to the summons". Following that, on March 1, the ED issued fresh summons to the District Collectors. The Collectors, instead of appearing, sent replies to the ED seeking postponement, stating that they were engaged with election-related duties in connection with the upcoming Lok Sabha elections and were discharging social welfare schemes in Districts. The Collectors also stated that they don't have the data related to mining and sought time to collect the same from other offices.
Today, a bench comprising Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, which was considering the ED's petition against the Madras High Court's order, took a dim view of the Collectors' approach. The bench told Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the State of Tamil Nadu, that the Collectors were bound to personally appear before the ED by obeying the Supreme Court's order.
When Sibal said that the data is not with the District Collectors and cited their engagement in the election duties, Justice Trivedi said, "They should have respected the Court orders and appeared in person and explained." When Sibal stated that appearance before the ED might disrupt the election duties, the bench said that it can give a last opportunity to the Collectors to appear before the ED after the date of elections in Tamil Nadu.
Advocate Zoheb Hossain, appearing for the ED, pointed out that the Collectors also stated in their replies that they are seeking a review of the Supreme Court's order and this showed a "very egregious conduct" on their part.
The bench passed an order making critical observations against the District Collectors.
"In our opinion, such cavalier approach will land them in a difficult situation. When the Court had passed the order directing them to appear in response to the summons issued by the ED, they were expected to obey the same order and remain present before the ED. This shows that the officers don't have either respect for the Court or the law much less the Constitution of India. Such an approach is strongly deprecated."
However, having regard to the fact that elections are scheduled to take place in Tamil Nadu on April 19, and taking note of the statement of Sibal that they are collecting the data from the concerned departments, the Court chose to give them one more chance to appear before the ED in response to the summons issued by the ED under S.50 Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Fixing the date of appearance as April 25, the Court stated, "The collectors shall remain personally present before the ED and respond to the summons, failing which a strict view will be taken." The matter will be next heard on May 6.
After the order was dictated, Sibal raised an argument that under Section 50 PMLA, the summons can be issued only to persons who are either accused or witnesses in a case. Sibal also stated that as per Section 50(3), a person can appear through an authorised agent also and need not appear personally themselves. However, Hossain objected by saying that Sibal's arguments were based on a wrong interpretation.
Last year, the ED had issued summons to the Collectors of Vellore, Trichy, Karur, Thanjavur and Ariyalur Districts. Challenging this, the State of Tamil Nadu filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court. In November last year, a division bench of the High Court stayed the summons observing that the ED was conducting a "fishing and roving" enquiry without ascertaining the existence of proceeds of crime.
Case Details : Directorate of Enforcement v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1959-1963 of 2024