Delhi Court Summons ED Special Director After Counsel Addressed Judge In Offensive Manner With Loud Tone

A Delhi Court yesterday summoned Special Director of Enforcement Directorate (ED) after a counsel appearing for the probe agency addressed the judge in offensive and derogratory manner with loud tone.

Special Judge Jitendra Singh of Rouse Avenue Courts directed the official to remain present physically and said that the presence was necessitated to initiate appropriate action for upholding the dignity of the court.

The judge was hearing the money laundering case involving Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar and other accused persons.

An application was moved by one of the accused, Anjaneya Hanumanthaiah, seeking release of the loose sheet pages alongwith digital devices.

It was his case that since the ECIR qua him had already been quashed by the Supreme Court in March, it is the duty of the ED to release the articles in question.

His counsel said that ED was deliberately not releasing the articles just to harras him, even though the matter was already quashed.

Notice in the application was issued on November 12.

The counsel appearing for ED submitted that he had specific instructions from “higher-ups” to seek adjournment for 15 days.

On this, the judge recorded in the order:

“The question was put to the Ld. Counsel to inform the Court regarding the extreme necessity for seeking adjournment to which Ld. Counsel in a very offensive and derogratory manner with loud tone audible to the Counsels present in the Court room submits 'Court ko jaisa lage waisa kar le'.”

The Court observed that it was not a solitary instance where the counsels for ED have behaved in such a manner.

It noted that even in the case of Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Amrendra Dhari Singh & Ors.', ED's Counsel had made a false sub- mission regarding the suppply of list of unrelied documents for which the judge was constrained to summon the IO.

“The Ld. Counsel as well as the DoE is well conversant of the fact that the parties seeking adjournment for more than 7 days have to show extreme necessity,” the Court said.

It added: “As the Counsel for the DoE has failed to specify the reason for seeking adjournment and has simply stated that he has been asked by the higher ups to do so, I am constrained to issue notice to worthy Special Director to appear and specify the stand of DoE with regard to the present application and to verify as to whether its counsel has been acting and conducting the case as per their instruction.”