On Thursday, the Supreme Court mulled a mechanism to identify vendetta and formulate a fair and transparent investigation of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and state government to eliminate apprehensions. However, the SC came on this after the case of an ED officer arrested for bribery by the Tamil Nadu DVAC on December 2023.
About the Case
The bench comprising of Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan was hearing the written petition filed by the ED seeking to transfer the investigation of the bribery case against the ED officer Ankit Tiwari from the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (TNDVAC) to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
According to the ED, the officer was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs 20 lakh from a doctor in Dindigul. But, the TNDVAC alleges that Tiwari threatened the doctor, demanding Rs 3 cr to close pending cases but eventually setting it for Rs 51 lakh. Moreover, the bench issued a notice to the State seeking a response to the petition and posted the matter after two weeks. The court directed TNDVAC to stop the investigation against Tiwari and to share all the materials collected for the case so far. At the same time, the tussle between the central and the state agencies continues on the case.
The scuffle between ED and State agency
The brawl between the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (TNDVAC) in the Ankit Tiwari case reveals a broader issue of potential misuse of the power of investigation. The ED is a central agency and TNDVAC is a state agency, and both operate under different jurisdictions. It might lead to confusion and competition over cases including officials from both spheres.
Furthermore, both parties have potentially misused their powers for intimidation or setting political scores. For which, the bodies appearing on behalf of the central and the state agencies came forward in the court to put the stands and arguments on the case.
Arguments between the appearing bodies
The courtroom clash between Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the central agency, and Senior Lawyer Kapil Sibal, representing the State has been a highlight of the bribery case. Sibal has strongly emphasized the TNDVAC’s authority to investigate the case, citing the jurisdictional power and questioning ED’s intervention as an attempt to ‘bulldoze’ the state agency’s investigation. He further argued that transferring the case to CBI would undermine the federal structure, and raised concern about the political vendetta behind ED’s push.
Meanwhile, SG Mehta argued that the CBI has the specialized investigative resources and expertise to handle financial crimes like this. He emphasized the need for a fair and impartial investigation, free from any political influence. He further argued that TNDVAC’s close proximity to the state govt could raise concerns about impartiality. So, transferring the case to CBI would ensure a more thorough and unbiased investigation. However, after listening to both sides, the bench has come up with a proactive approach.
Concern Remarked by the Bench of Justices
The bench consisting of Justices Surya Kant and VK Viswanathan made some significant remarks after hearing the arguments of SG Mehta and senior lawyer Sibal on the bribery case. The judges acknowledged the importance of fair and impartial investigation and the need to ensure no guilty person goes scot-free. They also recognized the concern regarding bias or vindictiveness in state investigations and about federalism and respecting state autonomy.
Moreover, the judges went beyond the immediate case and expressed their desire to address a larger issue in the matter, hinting at the need for a systematic solution to prevent such tussles. Justice Kant expressed concern about “vindictiveness” by central agencies, suggesting their wide reach could be misused. Whereas, Justice Viswanathan suggested forming a “special body” or mechanism investigation to handle the case of an inter-state investigation, particularly during political tensions, and other potential guidelines for both agencies.
Potential Outcome
The Supreme Court acknowledging both sides, seems to face the larger issue of preventing future agency clashes by exploring solutions like setting up committees or investigative mechanism. Overall, the potential outcome could have significant implications for future investigations involving state and central agencies, ensuring fairness and upholding the rule of law.
Comments 1