Delhi High Court delays decision on Mahua Moitra’s request to stop Enforcement Directorate from sharing information with the media on FEMA investigation. Moitra alleges her rights violation, while ED denies leaking information. Moitra also aims to restrict media houses from publishing unverified content.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
DELHI: On 22nd February,the Delhi High Court has reserved its order on a plea filed by Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Mahua Moitra. The plea seeks to restrain the Enforcement Directorate (ED) from allegedly leaking sensitive and unverified information to the media concerning the agency’s investigation into Moitra for an alleged violation of the Foreign Exchange Maintenance Act, 1999 (FEMA).
Justice Subramonium Prasad presided over the hearing and informed the parties that the verdict would be pronounced tomorrow.
ALSO READ: Mahua Moitra Revises Defamation Plea, Excludes Media Houses
Moitra has raised concerns about the ED leaking sensitive information to the media related to a FEMA probe in which she was recently summoned. The ED, however, has asserted in court that it has not leaked any information to the media and is unaware of how the information about Moitra’s summons became public.
Senior Advocate Rebecca John, representing Mahua Moitra, argued in court, emphasizing-
“I am not against ED’s right to investigate. I am saying I will submit to their jurisdiction. It is about the information being leaked prior to being communicated to me. ED is drip-feeding confidential information to the media.”
Despite Moitra’s claims, the court questioned how reports of her moving to court were published in the media even before the court heard the matter.
Justice Prasad pointed out-
“You are a public personality, a public person.”
Notably, Moitra included nineteen media houses as parties to her case, seeking directions to restrain them from publishing and circulating any “unverified, unconfirmed, false, derogatory content” against her. She called for aligning news reporting on the ED’s case with official press releases that may be issued by the ED.
ALSO READ: Mahua Moitra Withdraws Delhi High Court Plea Against Eviction
The media houses involved in Moitra’s case included ANI, Business Today, Economic Times, Financial Express, Hindustan Times, India TV, Indian Express, Mint, Moneycontrol, NDTV, Times Group, and others.
Advocate Siddhant Kumar, representing ANI, argued that the media has the right to publish source-based information, emphasizing that journalists have been reporting source-based information for a long time. He expressed concern that the prayers sought by Moitra would have a chilling effect on the media.
“I am entitled to investigate and publish source-based information. We have been reporting source-based information since a long time. It is because of source-based information that scandals like Watergate in the US came to light,”
-Kumar stated.
Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, representing the Central government, highlighted that the media learned about Moitra moving to court based on source-based information. He added that the government cannot address the questions raised by Moitra’s plea.
According to news reports, the ED had issued summons to Moitra last week, asking her to appear before it on February 19 in connection with a probe into alleged FEMA violations. She was directed to appear before the agency’s headquarters in Delhi with documents related to foreign investments.
Reports also mentioned that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is conducting a preliminary inquiry into the allegations against Moitra on a reference from the Lokpal.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Seeks Lok Sabha Secretary’s Response on Mahua Moitra’s Expulsion Plea
Moitra, in her petition before the High Court, alleged that the ED’s leaks to the media compromised the investigation, violating her rights, including privacy, dignity, and the right to a fair investigation. The plea stated-
“Such leakage of information has hampered the process of the investigation and also violated the rights of the Petitioner such as privacy, dignity of the individual concerned as well as her right to fair investigation.”
