The Supreme Court criticized the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for conducting a 15-hour interrogation without providing any breaks, calling it inhumane. The court expressed concern over the treatment of the individual involved, emphasizing the importance of humane practices in legal processes. This rebuke highlights the need for adherence to basic rights during interrogations.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court criticized the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for its treatment of former Haryana Congress legislator Surendra Panwar during a nearly 15-hour interrogation that extended past midnight.
The court labelled this approach as excessive and inhumane.
Panwar was arrested in connection with a money laundering case related to illegal mining, but his arrest had previously been cancelled by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, a decision the ED appealed to the Supreme Court.
The bench, led by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih, raised concerns about the ED’s interrogation methods, suggesting that the agency coerced Panwar into making a statement.
Read Also: Supreme Court: ED Required Special Court Permission to Arrest PMLA Accused
ED’s lawyer, Zoheb Hussain, disputed the high court’s account of the interrogation duration but acknowledged that a dinner break was provided. He also mentioned that the agency has taken measures to prevent interrogations from extending late into the night unnecessarily.
The Supreme Court dismissed the ED’s defenses, questioning how the agency could conduct such prolonged questioning without proper breaks. The court clarified that its comments, along with those of the high court, were focused solely on the bail issue and not the case’s merits. According to the high court, Panwar received a summons and arrived at the ED’s Gurgaon office at 11 AM, where he faced continuous questioning until 1:40 AM the next day (July 20).
In its ruling, the high court observed that according to the ED’s account, the petitioner was issued a notice and “duly appeared at the ED’s zonal office in Gurgaon at 11 AM, where he was continuously interrogated until 1:40 AM on July 20, totaling 14 hours and 40 minutes. This is not commendable behavior on the part of the ED; rather, it undermines human dignity.”
The court emphasized,
“In light of the mandate under Article 21, this court advises that the ED implement remedial measures and educate its officers to adhere to reasonable time limits for investigations involving suspects. Specifically, it would be beneficial to establish a mechanism for fair investigations that respect the basic human rights outlined by the United Nations, rather than subjecting individuals to prolonged harassment for such extended periods in a single day.”
Echoing the high court’s sentiments, the Supreme Court bench described the ED’s actions as “inhuman conduct.”
The bench highlighted that this case did not pertain to terrorism but rather to illegal sand mining, stating,
“This is not the way to treat individuals in such cases. You are compelling a person to make a statement.”
Reiterating the high court’s concerns, the Supreme Court stated that this case did not involve terrorism but rather illegal sand mining, asserting that such treatment was unjustifiable in this context.
Read Also: [Sand Mining Case] ED Appeals to Supreme Court Against Madras HC’s Stay Order
The court upheld the high court’s ruling, emphasizing that the ED had failed to demonstrate that Panwar was directly or indirectly involved in any activities related to the proceeds of crime.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court affirmed the high court’s order, highlighting the necessity for law enforcement to execute its duties while respecting human dignity and rights.
The Supreme Court upheld the high court’s determination that Panwar’s initial arrest and the grounds for it were legally unsustainable, noting that the ED failed to provide any evidence that the politician was directly or indirectly involved in any activities related to the proceeds of crime.