The Supreme Court Today (Aug 7) strongly questioned the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for its low conviction rate despite keeping people in jail for years. The court highlighted that ED seems to punish the accused even before trial or judgment.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India on Thursday raised serious concerns about the low conviction rate in cases investigated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
A three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, along with Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Vinod Chandran, voiced strong remarks during a hearing.
They pointed out that even when there is no conviction, the accused are still facing years of imprisonment due to ED investigations.
“Just in case, even if they are not convicted, you (ED) have been successful in sentencing them [accused] almost without a trial for years together,”
-said CJI BR Gavai.
This pointed remark came while the Court was hearing a review petition related to JSW Steel’s resolution plan for Bhushan Power and Steel Limited (BPSL). The petition was filed against a previous Supreme Court order that rejected the resolution plan.
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Committee of Creditors (CoC), informed the Court that the Enforcement Directorate has successfully recovered more than Rs 20,000 crore and the amount was distributed to victims. In support of the ED’s work, he said:
“The matters which come to court are only high-profile matters, there are other matters also.”
CJI Gavai was quick to question Mehta on the ED’s actual conviction success and asked:
“How much is the conviction rate?”
In response, Mehta admitted that conviction is a different issue altogether. He defended the agency’s efforts by pointing out the massive scale of recoveries and difficulties faced in communicating their success due to media limitations:
“Conviction is different. Sometimes we wonder how a person was acquitted. Sometimes we have recovered so much money that our machines stop working. We can’t give press interviews and YouTube discussions.”
To this, the Chief Justice gave a sharp response, clarifying how courts function:
“The court does not decide matters based on press reports.”
At present, the review petition is still under consideration, and the court has not yet passed its final judgment.
CASE TITLE:
Punjab National Bank & Anr v Kalyani Transco & Ors.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI BR Gavai
Click Here to Read Our Reports on ED Conviction Rate
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
