The Supreme Court has once again extended its interim stay on the criminal proceedings initiated by the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) against Enforcement Directorate (ED) officer Ankit Tiwari. This case, rooted in allegations of graft, has become a focal point in the ongoing discourse on the autonomy of central investigative agencies and their interactions with state governments.
Also Read- TN Rejects Statutory Bail Plea Of ED Officer Ankit Tiwari In Bribery Case (lawchakra.in)
The bench, led by Justice Surya Kant, has not only continued the interim relief for Tiwari but also opened the floor for the Tamil Nadu government to present its side, granting it additional time to respond to the petition filed by the ED against the state. This legal tussle stems from the DVAC’s action against Tiwari, which the central agency contends is retaliatory— a response to the money laundering and corruption cases filed by central agencies against ministers in Tamil Nadu, accompanied by subsequent raids.
Representing Tamil Nadu, Additional Advocate General Amit Anand Tiwari disclosed that the ED officer was allegedly apprehended while accepting a bribe of ₹20 lakh from a doctor in Dindigul district. This accusation forms the crux of the state’s case against Tiwari, challenging the narrative of retaliation and highlighting the state’s efforts to combat corruption within its jurisdiction.
On January 25, the apex court had initially stayed the investigation against Tiwari by both the DVAC and the ED, directing that the evidence collected thus far be submitted for its review. This move underscored the court’s intent to meticulously examine the facts of the case, ensuring that justice is served without being clouded by political motivations or inter-agency rivalry.
The Supreme Court’s deliberations have also ventured into the broader implications of such confrontations between state and central agencies. Justice KB Viswanathan, part of the bench, proposed the exploration of a “fair and transparent mechanism” to discern if actions taken by central agencies in opposition-ruled states, and the retaliatory measures by these states, stem from genuine concerns of corruption or are motivated by political vendetta. This suggestion aims to preserve the integrity of investigations while safeguarding the rights of the accused against unwarranted political persecution.
Also Read- Supreme Court Criticizes Bombay High Court’s Bail Decision (lawchakra.in)
Justice Surya Kant’s observations further emphasize the need for a balanced approach, cautioning against allowing allegations of political vendetta to become a refuge for the corrupt. The court’s stance reflects a commitment to ensuring that genuine cases of corruption are pursued with diligence, irrespective of the political affiliations of those involved.
The involvement of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta highlighted the complexities of jurisdiction and authority, questioning the necessity of Tamil Nadu’s involvement in cases registered by the ED against senior ministers. His remarks underscore the legal and procedural nuances that govern the operations of central agencies and their interaction with state entities.
As the Supreme Court continues to navigate this legal labyrinth, the case of Ankit Tiwari stands as a testament to the challenges of maintaining the delicate balance between enforcing the law, protecting individual rights, and preventing the misuse of power for political ends. The ongoing proceedings will undoubtedly have far-reaching implications for the relationship between state governments and central investigative agencies in India, setting precedents for how similar disputes are resolved in the future.
