Today (9th September),The Supreme Court has dismissed Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee and his wife Rujira’s plea against the ED’s summons in a teacher recruitment scam case. They are under investigation for alleged money laundering in connection with the West Bengal teacher recruitment scandal.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today (9th September), The Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Abhishek Banerjee and his wife, Rujira Banerjee, against summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with an alleged scam involving teacher recruitment in West Bengal. This high-profile case centers around accusations of money laundering related to the recruitment of teachers in West Bengal, which has become a major controversy in the state.
Abhishek Banerjee, a Member of Parliament from the Trinamool Congress, and his wife, Rujira Banerjee, are under investigation by the ED for their alleged involvement in the scam. The central agency has been probing accusations that involve a significant amount of money being laundered in connection to the recruitment process. The ED alleges that the Banerjees are implicated in a money laundering scheme that siphoned off crores of rupees from the teacher recruitment process in schools across West Bengal.
Abhishek Banerjee had been summoned multiple times by the Enforcement Directorate but had skipped several of these summonses, which led him to approach the Supreme Court for relief. He argued that the summonses issued by the ED were legally flawed, citing procedural violations in their issuance. Banerjee contended that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) does not provide specific procedures regarding the issuance of summons, and therefore, the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) should apply.
According to Banerjee, since the CrPC governs such procedural matters, he should be required to appear before the ED in Kolkata, where he resides, and not in New Delhi, as directed by the agency. Banerjee’s legal team argued that summoning him to Delhi was a violation of his rights, as the alleged offenses occurred in West Bengal, making Kolkata the appropriate jurisdiction.
A bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma delivered the Supreme Court’s verdict, dismissing the plea by the Banerjees. The court had previously reserved its judgment on August 13. The apex court upheld the ED’s right to summon the couple to New Delhi for questioning in the ongoing investigation under the PMLA.
In its ruling, the court stated,
“…we do not find any substance in the challenge made by the Appellants to the summons issued under Section 50 of the PMLA. As per sub-section (3) of Section 50, all summoned individuals must attend in person or through authorized agents as directed by the officer, and must state the truth regarding any subject they are examined on and produce any required documents.”
The court further elaborated that under Section 50 of the PMLA, individuals summoned by the agency are legally obligated to appear, either in person or through authorized representatives, and to cooperate fully by producing documents and providing truthful statements.
ALSO READ: TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee Appeals Against ED Summons in Supreme Court
The judgment highlighted that these proceedings are treated as judicial in nature, falling under the purview of Section 193 and Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), meaning any false statement made during these proceedings can lead to severe legal consequences.
The court also remarked-
“Under Section 63(4), a person who intentionally disobeys a direction under Section 50 can be prosecuted under Section 174 of the IPC.”
The Enforcement Directorate has strongly defended its stance, arguing that the provisions of PMLA, particularly Section 50, take precedence over any argument based on the CrPC. Representing the ED, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, along with advocate Zoheb Hossain, asserted that the provisions of the CrPC cited by the petitioners do not apply in this context. The ED emphasized that the PMLA allows for the summoning of individuals beyond the territorial jurisdiction of their residence.
In response to the claims made by Abhishek Banerjee, the ED argued that the money laundering case involved a serious offense spanning across states, and thus, the summons to New Delhi was entirely within the law.
The court’s order also noted the non-compliance of Rujira Banerjee, who had failed to appear before the ED or produce the required documents, despite multiple summonses, including those issued on August 4, 2021, and August 18, 2021.
“The Status Report submitted by the ED’s Deputy Director indicates that Rujira Banerjee did not appear or produce the documents as required by the summons dated 04.08.2021 and 18.08.2021.”
-the court said.
Consequently, the ED had filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, under Section 63 of the PMLA, read with Section 174 of the IPC.
The top court ultimately concluded-
“It is sufficient to state that we find no illegality in the orders issued by the concerned court, and the complaint will proceed further in accordance with the law.”
Abhishek Banerjee was represented in the Supreme Court by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, while Rujira Banerjee’s defense was led by Senior Advocates Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Gopal Sankaranarayanan. On the other side, the Enforcement Directorate was represented by Additional Solicitor General SV Raju and Advocate Zoheb Hossain.