A Delhi court on Saturday remanded Bharat Rashtra Samithi leader K Kavitha to the custody of Enforcement Directorate (ED) custody till March 23 in connection with the Delhi Liquor Policy scam case.
The order was passed by Special judge MK Nagpal of Rouse Avenue Courts.
The national agency today produced Kavitha before the trial court following her arrest in the case yesterday.
ED sought 10-day remand of the accused in the money laundering case.
The Telangana Legislative Council member today called her arrest illegal and said that she will fight it in the court.
Appearing for Kavitha, Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhary submitted that the arrest was a ‘blatant’ abuse of power and authority.
He alleged that ED violated its oral assurance or undertaking given to the Supreme Court in September last year that the Central probe agency will not summon Kavitha till the next date of hearing in her plea against summons.
He said the entire action of ED was wrong.
Calling it a vexatious arrest, Chaudhary said that ED had withdrawn its oral undertaking, which was not recorded in the order by the Apex Court.
“An undertaking given to the court which is not explicitly recorded because we believe that status of each of us counsels are par higher and statement is good enough. This undertaking was withdrawn,” Chaudhary said.
The Counsel asked what prevented ED from waiting for three days and getting an order from the Supreme Court.
He alleged that the agency wanted to overreach the Apex Court. The basic courtesy demanded that ED get a clarification. However, it became the judge, jury and executioner, which was the worst thing.
Appearing for the national agency, Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain contended that no statement was given to any court, including the Supreme Court, that the probe agency will not take any coercive action.
He says the petitioner had filed two distinct prayers. One for quashing of summons and another seeking no coercive action. No statement was ever made that anyone has ever said that there will be no coercive action. The statement made in September was that whenever the ED was going to issue summon, it would issue it after 10 days.
He told Chaudhary not to go exclusively by newspaper reports.
Since newspaper reports could not be reliable sources to show as to what transpired in a court hearing and when there was no explicit judicial order, the petitioner could not presume an interim relief in her favour.
He requested the Apex Court to test whether the requirements under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) were fulfilled in the absence of any written order.
The Counsel said there was no written interim protection in their favour. Admitting that no coercive action was sought in the prayers, he said there was no order granting no coercive action in the favour of the accused.
Hossain said that an undertaking could not be stretched beyond what it was. There was no breach of any undertaking given to the Supreme Court, he added.
He further submitted that ED had reliable statements of individuals to prove the role of the accused in receiving kickbacks and that the probe agency was going to summon those persons for confrontation with the BRS leader on Monday.