SC rejects TMC leader Abhishek Banerjee and his wife's plea challenging ED summons in money laundering case

New Delhi [India], September 9 (ANI): The Supreme Court (SC) on Monday dismissed the plea of TMC leader Abhishek Banerjee and his wife, Rujira, challenging the Directorate of Enforcement's (ED) summons in a money laundering case relating to alleged recruitment irregularities in the schools of West Bengal.
A bench of justices, Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, said that their appeals, being devoid of merit, are dismissed.
"Much reliance has been placed by the learnt counsels for the appellants on the annual report of the Ministry of Finance, GOI, which according to them has stated about the organisational structure of the Directorate of Enforcement, demarcating the territorial jurisdiction of various zonal offices of the ED. According to them, such instructions by the Department of Revenue are for exercise of powers of investigation by the ED as mandated by Section 51 PMLA and therefore must be strictly complied with. The said submission, also being fallacious, cannot be accepted," the top court said.
The top court noted that the offices of the Directorate of Enforcement all over India are set up to ensure that the money laundering offences are investigated in an effective manner and they act as deterrence for the potential offenders of the money laundering. Pertinently, the Headquarters Investigation Unit (HIU) has not been restricted to any territorial jurisdiction in the said organisational structure, and the present ECIR is recorded at the HIU, the top court said.
"We therefore do not find any illegality in the summons issued by the respondent-ED summoning the appellants to its office at Delhi, which also has territorial jurisdiction, a part of the offence having been allegedly committed by the accused persons as alleged in the complaint. It is also not disputed that the appellant No. 1 (Abhishek Banerjee), being a Member of Parliament, has also an official residence in Delhi," the top court noted and further said it did not find any substance in the challenge made by the appellants to the summons issued to the appellants under Section 50 of the PMLA.
"As contemplated in the sub-section (3) of Section 50, all the persons summoned are bound to attend in person or through authorised agents as the officer may direct and are bound to state the truth upon any subject respecting which they are examined or make statements, and to produce the documents as may be required. As per sub-section (4) thereof, every proceeding under sub-sections (2) and (3) is deemed to be a Judicial proceeding within the meaning of section 193 and section 228 of the IPC," the top court said.
"As per sub-section (4) of Section 63, a person who intentionally disobeys any direction issued under Section 50 is liable to be proceeded against under Section 174 of the IPC," the top court said.
The court also observed that, as transpiring from the status report submitted by the deputy director, ED, New Delhi, pursuant to the order passed by this court on July 18, 2024, the appellant No. 2--Rujira Banerjee--had not appeared and not produced the documents as required vide the Summons dated August 4, 2021 and August 18, 2021. The ED therefore had filed the complaint in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, against her under Section 63 PMLA read with (r/w) Section 174 IPC.
The top court further noted that though the appellant, Rujira, by filing the petition before the High Court, had challenged the order dated September 18, 2021, passed by the said court taking cognisance of the said complaint and the order dated September 30, 2021, summoning her before the court, she has not even bothered to produce the said orders before this court in the instant appeals.
"Since the said complaint is pending before the concerned court of chief judicial magistrate, we do not express any opinion on the merits of the said complaint. Suffice it to say that we do not find any illegality in the said orders passed by the concerned court and that the said complaint shall be proceeded further by the said court in accordance with law," the top court said.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Abhishek Banerjee, while senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for Rujira in the matter. Advocate Zoheb Hossain argued for the probe agency ED and opposed the plea by Abhishek and his wife.
The TMC leader is being questioned by the ED in various money laundering cases. One among them is alleged recruitment irregularities in West Bengal schools. ED has alleged that irregularities took place in the recruitment process for state-run schools and jobs were purportedly offered for monetary gains.
A few months ago, the Calcutta High Court declared the entire panel of the 2016 School Service Commission's teachers' recruitment null and void, cancelling all appointments of teachers and non-teaching staff. The West Bengal government challenged it in the top court, and the matter is still pending.
"Vide the impugned order, the High Court, based on oral submissions without any affidavit on record, has proceeded to, in a cursory manner, give directions to cancel all appointments of teachers and non-teaching staff, in utter disregard to the fact that the same will lead to a huge vacuum in the state schools unless the new selection process is completed by the SSC, especially when the new academic session is on its brim, leading to the students being adversely impacted," the petition moved by the West Bengal government said.
The WB government also said that the Calcutta HC decision to set aside the selection process affects nearly 23,123 teaching and non-teaching staff in the State of West Bengal. (ANI)