1. Home
2. Legal News
3. “There Is A Threat To Very Democracy If Agencies Like CBI, ED Do Not Act Independently”: Bombay High Court

“There Is A Threat To Very Democracy If Agencies Like CBI, ED Do Not Act Independently”: Bombay High Court

Dated: January 22, 2021

                                                                                                                                                           - By Megha Bhatia

On January 22, 2020 the Bombay High Court said the judiciary and agencies such as the RBI, CBI and ED are deemed autonomous and should therefore behave impartially.

A petition led by Eknath Khadse was heard by the division bench of Justices S S S Shinde and Manish Pitale, seeking to quash a complaint filed against him in October last year by the Enforcement Directorate.

In the meantime, Aabad Ponda, Khadse’s solicitor, was seeking immunity from coercive action against his client. He also demanded an audio-video recording of the questioning based on the summons sent to him.

The ED’s lawyer, Anil Singh, told the court that until Monday(January 25), the agency would take no action. He, however, said it was not appropriate to record his comment.

“What heavens are going to fall if the petitioner is given protection for few mor days? We have always believed that the judiciary and agencies like the RBI, CBI ED should act independently and impartially.,” Justice Shinde said.

“There is a threat to the very democracy if these agencies do not act independently,” the court added.

Justice Shinde questioned why there was so much pressure on the fact that there should be no interim protection. “What is the harm making a solemn statement o record? On Monday, what do I tell my lords if he is arrested?”

Justice Shinde said he adhered to it every time Singh made a comment. If an order is passed, Singh said, it would set a wrong precedent. However, after Ponda’s claims that Khadse was able to cooperate with the investigation, the bench challenged the need for detention. “If someone is ready to cooperate and honour the summons, we pose the question to ourselves, what is the reason to arrest ?”

“Co-operation during investigation could be considered if this is an anticipatory bail application, not when he is seeking quashing of the complaint. I have an objection to the maintainability of this petition. The court will then need to mak a prima facie observation that no case is made out,” Singh argued.

On 15 January this year, Khadse (68), who left the BJP and joined the NCP in October 2020, appeared before the ED in Mumbai to record his statement in the alleged land grab case, pursuant to a summons issued against him.

In his plea, Khadse argued that the land in dispute had been bought lawfully by his wife and son-in-law from the owner and that the proceedings were not unlawful.

The ED claimed in its affidavit on January 22, 2020 in response to Khadse’s petition that an initial inquiry clearly disclosed different evidence showing money laundering in the case.

In the alleged land grab case in Pune, the ED said the ECIR was filed in October 2020 against Eknath Khadse, his wife Mandakini Khadse and son-in-law Girish Choudhari, causing the public exchequer to lose Rs 62 crore.

The land was bought at a low rate of Rs 3.75 crore, according to the department, with the criminal intent to eventually claim compensation from the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC), which was to purchase the land in the future.

It said that in 2016, Khadse misused his obstetric role as State Revenue Minister.

In its affidavit, the ED claimed that the court has not approved the closure report to date, and thus the FIR is not closed.