The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has filed a caveat application in the Supreme Court in response to Bharatiya Rashtra Samithi (BRS) MLC K Kavitha‘s plea challenging the summons issued by the probe agency against her in connection to the Delhi excise policy case. Kavitha, the daughter of Telangana Chief Minister K Chandrasekhar Rao, has approached the Supreme Court, arguing that a woman cannot be summoned for questioning before the ED in office, and her questioning should take place at her residence.
The ED has asked the MLC to appear again before it on March 16, but she did not appear citing that her plea is pending in SC. On March 15, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Kavitha’s plea challenging the summons of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on March 24.
A caveat application is filed by a litigant to ensure that no adverse order is passed against them without being heard. The ED’s move to file a caveat application suggests that it is concerned about Kavitha obtaining an ex-parte order against it.
Kavitha’s lawyer has mentioned the plea before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and sought an urgent hearing on her petitions. The court agreed to list it on March 24.
In her petition, Kavitha has urged the top court to quash the ED summons dated March 7 and 11, stating that asking her to appear before the agency office instead of her residence is contrary to the settled tenets of criminal jurisprudence and thus, wholly unsustainable in law being violative of the Proviso to Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973.
Kavitha has also sought that all procedures carried out by ED, including those in relation to the recording of statements, be audio or videographed in the presence of her lawyer at a visible distance inter-alia by way of installation of appropriate CCTV cameras. She has also sought to set aside the impounding order dated March 11, 2023, and declare the seizure made thereunder null and void.
In her petition, Kavitha alleges that certain members of the incumbent ruling political party at the centre made scandalous statements linking her to the Delhi Excise Policy and the said FIR, despite her not being named in the FIR.
She further alleges that the ED’s remand application containing her personal contact details was leaked to the media and the public. Kavitha argues that this act is petty, illegal, and an unfortunate reflection upon the malicious conduct of the Enforcement Directorate in consonance with the political party in power at the centre.
In conclusion, Kavitha’s plea challenging the summons issued by the ED against her in connection to the Delhi excise policy case is set to be heard on March 24 by the Supreme Court. The case has attracted attention due to the involvement of a prominent political figure and allegations of political conspiracy.