A Delhi court criticized the Enforcement Directorate’s aggressive tactics against private hospital doctors in the Amit Katyal case, emphasizing the importance of adhering to legal procedures and citizens’ rights.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
DELHI: Delhi court recently criticized the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for its heavy-handed approach in dealing with private hospital doctors, stating that the agency must adhere to the rule of law and cannot wield undue power over ordinary citizens. The court’s remarks came during a hearing concerning the misuse of Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) against doctors, in an attempt to oppose the extension of interim bail for businessman Amit Katyal.
Special Judge Vishal Gogne of the Rouse Avenue Court emphasized that there was “absolutely no justification” for the ED to subject these citizens to such stringent processes without any allegations linking the doctors directly to the money laundering activities accused against Katyal.
“Accepting such an argument would not only be an inversion of the social contract on which every liberal democracy is based but also a violation of the constitutional scheme and constitutional morality.”
– Judge Gogne articulated.
ALSO READ: Ex-ED Officer Vs ED | Delhi HC Declines Officer’s PIL Against ED & Section 66 PMLA
The judge highlighted a broader issue with enforcement agencies and laws, warning that they often “come back to bite the very citizens they vow to protect.” Following targeted enforcement actions, these laws are often accused of being improperly applied against ordinary citizens.
“The ED’s application of section 50 [PMLA] on law-abiding doctors working in private hospitals contributes to the existing perception.”
-the court noted.
On April 30, this matter concerning businessman Amit Katyal emerged, entangled in a controversy linked to transactions with relatives of former railways minister Lalu Prasad Yadav in exchange for railway positions. Katyal, who underwent bariatric surgery at Medanta Hospital in Gurgaon on April 9, sought an extension of his interim bail.
His legal representatives argued that the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) actions, which included recording statements from doctors at Apollo and Medanta Hospital, where Katyal received medical care post-surgery, not only violated the permissible boundaries of Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) but also encroached upon the privacy of his medical treatment, which is considered a fundamental right of the accused.
Despite these arguments, the court decided against extending Katyal’s interim bail. However, it strongly criticized the ED for its approach, particularly noting that Section 50 PMLA should not apply to the verification of medical or other similar documents in interim bail proceedings.
“The court cannot concur with the argument made by the Ld. ASG that section 50(2) encompasses all proceedings that may arise during a trial before the Special Court handling PMLA cases.”
-Judge Gogne clarified.
ALSO READ: Delhi Court Questions ED on Doctor Statements in PMLA Case
The court observed that the ED had selectively avoided examining any of the doctors from government hospitals under section 50 PMLA, indicating a cautious approach towards government servants while imposing the section on private practitioners, which “raises the question of why private practitioners from Apollo Hospital and Medanta Hospital were subjected to section 50, along with the associated threats from sections 193 and 228 of the IPC.”
