K. Kavitha, Telangana Chief Minister’s daughter, and Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader moved to the Supreme Court against Enforcement Directorate (ED) summons related to the Delhi Excise Policy case. Today, the case was mentioned before the Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud who refused to hear the case on an immediate basis and posted the matter on 24th March 2023. Kavitha claimed that her name was not in the FIR and said that the summons was directly against Section 160 CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) which illustrates that woman should be required to attend as a witness at a place where she resides rather than any other place. She was asked to appear before the ED in Delhi for questioning. During the hearing, Kavitha claimed that she received very short notice from the ED for an appearance. Due to this, she offered to be examined at her residence or to extend the date of the examination which was denied by the ED. On March 11, she appeared before the ED for questioning and another summon was handed over to her for an appearance on March 16.
In addition, K. Kavitha also mentioned various illegalities subjected by the ED during her appearance. She further alleged that ED leaked her personal information purposely for filing a remand application qua one of the accused in the case. This was the reason that she was questioned for almost seven hours by the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation). The plea filed before the Supreme Court states that highly coercive tactics and third-degree measures are adopted by ED in consideration of the investigation. Advocate Vandana Sehgl further highlighted some of the points from the plea filed, “There is no case against the petitioner. The only basis on which the petitioner has been implicated is on the basis of certain statements of a few persons who have given incriminating statements qua themselves as well as allegedly against the petitioner. However, such statements have been extracted out of threat and coercion, which is evident from the fact that on March 10, 10123, one Mr, Arun Ramachandran Pillai, retracted his statement. The credibility of the statements purported to be against the petitioner is under serious doubt.”
Also Read: Legal Articles