Recruitment Scam: Calcutta High Court Asks ED To Scrutinise Documents Submitted By MP Abhishek Banerjee Before Summoning Him, Give 48 Hrs Notice

The Calcutta High Court has directed the Enforcement Directorate (“ED”) which is investigating the multi-tier recruitment scam in West Bengal, to first go through the documents submitted by accused MP Abhishek Banerjee and then summon him if necessary, after giving 48 hours’ notice.

The Court further made it clear that the investigation be completed at the earliest, and in accordance with law, and also directed the single-judge in seisin of the recruitment scam matters to ensure that no adverse remark was made against any person against whom investigations were pending, which would be likely to prejudice their rights.

A division-bench of Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Uday Kumar held:

The appellant is a Member of Parliament. The disclosures cannot cause any prejudice to him. It is expected that he should cooperate with the investigation. We direct the applicant to disclose all document and informations sought from him till date on or before 10th October, 2023. ED shall examine it and in the event the ED is of the opinion that the presence of the applicant is necessary, shall issue summons for appearance of the applicant by giving him a notice of 48 hours in advance.

Before we conclude, we like to observe that the learned Single Judge in proceeding with the matter shall keep in mind that in monitoring the investigation, no adverse remark shall be made against any of the persons against whom the investigation is pending as it is likely to prejudice his rights in the event any proceeding is ultimately initiated upon conclusion of the investigation.

These observations came in a plea moved by Banerjee against a single-judge order of Justice Amrita Sinha, which removed ED Assistant Director from the probe after noting that the list of assets of Banerjee, as summoned by the Court, were glaringly inadequate.

Banerjee's counsel submitted that the trial before the single judge had assumed a character of a media trial, and that in its capacity of monitoring the trial, the Court had actually assumed the role of “prosecutor” by “interfering in the manner of investigation.”

It was submitted that the Court had no place to assume that the disclosure made by the investigating agency was inadequate since the same was their exclusive domain, and that the remarks made by the judge had the effect of prejudicing the trial against the accused.

Counsel argued that confidential material regarding the assets of the accused had been read out by the judge on live stream and made public to Banerjee's detriment.

Upon hearing the arguments, the Court noted that the magnitude of the scam is unfathomable. A fair investigation can only restore trust and faith in the system and it should be the endeavour of all to ensure that the culprits are brought to book and corrupts are punished.

The Bench expressed its inability to accept the submission that the single-bench was interfering with the investigation and noted that the questions of the Court were in the nature of an enquiry being made to determine whether the report of the ED was unsatisfactory due to the want of documents supplied by the accused.

We only say that some of the questions appearing in the transcript version were avoidable. However, we do not find any reflection of such questions in the impugned orders. The learned Single Judge perhaps was exasperated due to incomplete report and tardy progress of investigation, it noted.

In response to the arguments of DSG Dhiraj Trivedi regarding the inability of the ED to proceed in absence of documents being disclosed by the accused, the Bench observed failure to call for information and documents essential for the investigation could be fatal and may create a public perception of lack of probity. ED has dedicated skilled investigators and we would expect that the investigation proceeds on a right direction.

Accordingly, upon noting that summons were only issued to Banerjee due to inadequacy of documents, the Bench directed the Counsel for the appellant to ensure that all relevant documents were produced before the ED within 10^th October, after which the ED would be able to summon the appellant with 48-hours’ notice if they were still dissatisfied with the disclosure.

In concluding, the Court directed that the parties cooperate with each other and that the entire investigation be concluded within 31^st December 2023.

The constitutional court cannot shut its eyes if there are glaring discrepancies or insufficiency of materials. The result of the investigation would be also relevant to decide the matters pending before the learned Single Judge. The investigating agency shall conduct the investigation in accordance with law, it held.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 311

Case: Abhishek Banerjee v Ramesh Malik & Ors

Case No: MAT 1960 of 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order