The Supreme Court on Monday extended its stay order of criminal proceedings by Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) against Enforcement Directorate (ED) officer Ankit Tiwari in a graft case.
A Bench headed by Justice Surya Kant ordered the interim relief to continue even as Tamil Nadu government sought time to file a response to a petition filed by the ED against the State.
The Central agency has challenged the proceedings against Mr. Tiwari. It has argued that the action against Mr. Tiwari, an ED officer in Tamil Nadu, was a tit-for-tat by the State for money laundering and corruption cases lodged by Central agencies against Ministers and ensuing raids on them. It has sought a transfer of the case from DVAC.
Tamil Nadu, represented by Additional Advocate General Amit Anand Tiwari, has stated that Mr. Tiwari was caught red-handed accepting a bribe of ₹20 lakh from a doctor in Dindigul district.
On January 25, the apex court had stayed both DVAC and the ED from probing the case against Mr. Tiwari. The Bench had directed the material collected so far in the investigation to be placed on record before it.
On Monday, Mr. Tiwari sought two weeks for Tamil Nadu to file a response to the ED petition.
On January 25, the apex court had suggested a mechanism to screen if political vendetta or vindictiveness was not the actual reason behind Centre unleashing the Enforcement Directorate on officials and Ministers in Opposition-ruled States and States retaliating by arresting the Central agency’s local officers.
“We should explore a fair and transparent mechanism or a body which will look into the inter-state ramifications, especially when different parties are at the Centre and States, and keep intact the object of punishing the guilty while preventing vindictive arrests… Unless that is evolved…” Justice KB Viswanathan, on the Bench, had proposed in the previous hearing.
The court also said the mechanism should ensure that the accused in genuine cases filed by the ED do not go scot-free by crying “political vendetta”.
“Allegations and counter-allegations of political vendetta cannot be evolved as a paradise for those who are corrupt… The ultimate objective is a fair investigation,” Justice Kant had observed.
Mr. Mehta had questioned the need for the State of Tamil Nadu to be involved when ED registered individuals who happened to be senior Ministers.
“If there is a vindictive arrest by the ED, there are courts. Courts are intervening in such cases,” the Solicitor General had submitted.
