'Right To Contest Includes Right To Campaign' : Rajasthan High Court Quashes ED Summons To Congress Candidate Mewaram Jain

The Rajasthan High Court recently quashed the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against Mewa Ram Jain, Congress’s candidate from Barner in the upcoming Legislative Election, holding it “not appropriate” in the circumstances.

“The petitioner is a candidate contesting State Legislative Assembly Elections and in a democratic setup like ours, his right to contest in an election encompasses the right to canvass as well.”

Justice Farjand Ali said that the polling was supposed to be held on November 25, 2023 while ED issued summons to Jain on November 20, asking him to remain present at the office at Jaipur (500 kilometers away from his constituency) on November 22.

“It is understandable that his presence is inevitably required in his constituency and it would not be within reason and feasible for him to travel 500 kms to the concerned Office at Jaipur and 500 kms back to his constituency, that too, when it is not at all clear as to what is the purpose for the summons and in what capacity (accused/witness) he has been summoned.”

The court further said that Jain had a right to know the nature of accusation against him and for what reason was he being summoned so that he could collect the required material and remain present.

Accordingly, the court granted ED liberty to issue a fresh notice to Jain with better particulars for any dates post 3rd December, 2023 as by that time, the counting for the Election would have been completed.

“It is the opinion of this Court that if the impugned summon is deferred for a period of about seven days then it would not result in any adverse impact on the proceedings as such. Moreover, even if the petitioner is made to appear in compliance of the summon, it would not serve any fruitful purpose.”

Senior Advocate Vikas Balia for Jain submitted he was elbow deep in election campaigning and it was onerous to expect him to travel 500kms to attend the ED office when he didn’t even know why was he being summoned. He didn’t even know if he was being summoned as a witness or an accused and what documents, if at all, were required from him. Also, it was his fundamental right to know the allegations against him, if any.

Standing counsel for ED BP Bohra submitted that the notice was under statutory proforma. The matter was pending inquiry before the Directorate and many things were required to be kept in ‘secrecy’ so it couldn’t be disclosed. He further contended the investigation of the case is underway and for the purpose of completion, the presence of the petitioner is required. However, he agreed that owing to the present election the petitioner’s difficulty was comprehensible.

“After anxious consideration of the matter made available as well as the submissions made at the bar, I am of this view that notice issued by the respondent department against the petitioner for this period is not appropriate in the given circumstances,” the court said and quashed the summons.

Case Title: Mewa Ram Jain S/o Shri Chintaman Das Jain v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Case No: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.7313/2023

Click Here To Read/ Download Order