Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay ED Summons To Mehbooba Mufti

SRINAGAR: A division bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jasmeet Singh of the Delhi High Court today refused to grant a stay on summons by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) issued to the former Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, Mehbooba Mufti on a case against her under S.50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, reported

Her appearance before ED is now due for Mar 22. She was represented by Sr Adv Nitya Ramakrishnan, whereas Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, along with others appeared for the Centre and ED.

Upon Ramakrishnan’s submission that on the last date of hearing the ED was “kind enough” to submit that it would not insist on her appearance until Mar 19, Mehta said, “We were not kind, the circumstances were such.”

The court then said that it was not going to grant any stay on the summons.

Mufti was issued a summons for an appearance on Mar 15. On the last date of hearing the ED had submitted before the court that it would not insist upon her appearance until Mar 19.

Mehta also contested the issuance of notice on Mufti’s petition stating that they would file a legal note in reply to her petition and that a constitution bench decision already covered the issue. He has undertaken to file the note by tomorrow itself.

Upon his submission, the court has further directed both the parties to file the compilation of judgments that they seek to rely on in a legal note and posted the case for the next hearing on Apr 16.

The PDP leader moved court seeking quashing of summons issued to her by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

Mufti had claimed in her petition that she received the summons on her personal email ID from the official email ID of the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate on Mar 5 under Sections 50(2) and 50(3) of the PMLA and that it refers to an annexure which “has not been sent to her, and therefore she is not aware of its contents.”

She has objected to the fact that she has not been informed if she is being summoned as an accused or as a witness and further not been informed of what she is being summoned in connection with, and the scheduled offence under the PMLA which gave rise to the proceedings in respect of which the summons has been issued to her.

She also challenged the vires of Section 50, and incidental provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 for being “unfairly discriminatory, bereft of safeguards, and violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution” and has cited various judgments laid down by the Supreme Court in different cases, reported


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here