Scam involving the Delhi excise policy: ED submits a caveat in SC on K Kavitha's petition disputing summonses against her

In response to Bharatiya Rashtra Samithi (BRS) MLC K Kavitha's request for the Supreme Court to dismiss the summons that had been issued against her in connection with the Delhi Excise Policy Case, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has submitted a caveat application. To prevent an unfavorable judgment against them without due process, a litigant files a caveat application.

Kavitha, who is the daughter of Telangana Chief Minister K Chandrasekhar Rao, has petitioned the Supreme Court, arguing that by law, an ED interview should take place at Kavitha's home rather than at the office.

The Supreme Court decided on March 15 to hear Kavitha's appeal of the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) summons on March 24.

The MLC was requested by ED to appear before it once again on March 16, but she did not, claiming that her SC petition was still ongoing. In connection with a money laundering case involving the alleged anomalies in the Delhi Excise Policy Case, the court has decided to hear her plea on March 24. The attorney representing Kavitha said that it is "absolutely against the law" for ED to have brought a lady for interrogation at this time.

An urgent hearing on Kavitha's petitions was requested by her attorney before a bench presided over by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud. On March 24, the court decided to list it. The lawyer said that Kavitha has been ordered to appear before ED tomorrow when the judge inquired as to the urgency of the situation. Kavitha has asked the top court to overturn the ED summonses dated March 7 and 11, arguing that doing so is against established principles of criminal law and is therefore wholly unjustifiable under the law as it violates the Proviso to Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. Kavitha has filed the petition through attorney Vandana Sehgal. Moreover, she has asked that all ED operations, including those involving the recording of statements, be audio or videotaped in her presence and from a clear distance, among other things, by installing suitable CCTV cameras.

Learn more about the situation:

She has also sought to invalidate the seizure done in accordance with an impounding order that was issued on March 11, 2023.

Despite the petitioner, Kavitha, not being named in the FIR, several members of the current governing political party at the center made scandalous allegations tying the petitioner to the Delhi Excise Policy and the abovementioned FIR, she said in the appeal.

"Unfortunately, court involvement through the lawsuit did not put a stop to the political plot against the petitioner (K Kavitha). On November 30, 2022, the Enforcement Directorate submitted a remand application to the relevant Court on one of the accused. The petitioner's private contact information was included in this remand application. In a remand application that didn't even include the petitioner, it made no sense to disclose the petitioner's private contact information. The petitioner being a woman makes the crime much more heinous "Leader of BRS remarked.

"The succeeding occurrences are very dishonorable, and in the petitioner's opinion, were arranged by the Enforcement Directorate at the direction of the members of the incumbent governing party at the center, as part of a bigger plot against the petitioner," she added.

K Kavitha noted that the abovementioned remand application, which included the petitioner's contact information, had been leaked to the public and media.

"Social media was used aggressively to spread the remand application. Such behavior is inconsiderate, unlawful, and unfavorably indicative of the Enforcement Directorate's nefarious actions in support of the central government's ruling political party "said Kavitha. The investigators categorically said that "there is no provision under the PMLA for the recording of statements at any person's house," in reference to the ED's denial of her request to have an examination conducted at her home.

"After that, at 11:03 p.m. on March 8, 2023, the petitioner submitted an email claiming her right to be inspected at her home. But, the Petitioner informed the Respondent that she will come before them on March 11, 2023, after reserving her rights "Kavitha said.