ED’s plea on Nalini Chidambaram on April 17

Opposing a plea moved by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking to lift an interim stay against the operation of summons issued to former Finance Minister P Chidambaram’s wife Nalini Chidambaram to appear before the ED in its Kolkata office as a witness in connection with the Saradha chit fund scam, it was contended at the Madras High Court on Friday that a witch-hunt has been let loose against her through Central enforcement and investigation agencies, for political reasons. 

Senior counsel Satish Parasaran, appearing on behalf of Nalini Chidambaram, contended that despite a statutory prohibition to summon women and men below 15 years and above 65 years of age to appear for inquiry out of their place of residence, the ED has issued the summon. 

He said, “Section 160 of the CrPC clearly says that woman cannot be summoned out of their place of residence for any inquiry. The provision applies for proceedings under PMLA.” Refuting the contentions, additional solicitor general G Rajagopalan said, “Provisions of PMLA empowers ED to summon any person. No provision of the Act requires authorities to comply with section 160 of CrPC and PMLA has over riding powers over inconsistent statues.” 

However, Justice SM Subramaniam on observing that enforcement authorities have their own powers and limitations and that court can interfere only if they act excessively, wondered, “If every woman in the country seeks protection under Section 160 of CrPC, will it be practically possible for the agencies to go to every one of their location to get statements?”  

Also, pointing out that the summons was issued in 2016, the judge said, the petitioner has gained two years owing to the interim stay. “Why cannot she appear before the ED and sort out the issue and help the investigation,” justice Subramanian asked. 

But Nalini Chidambaram’s counsel countered it saying the petitioner has already submitted all the required documents and statements as required by the agency through authorised person. 

Even now, she has not approached the court to quash the summon, all that she insists is when there is a statutory protection the agency cannot demand her personal appearance, he argued.

If it is not possible, the law must be amended, which is for the Parliament to decide. As the parliament has considered woman, children and senior citizens as vulnerable, a policy protection has been given under section 160, Parasaran added. Recoding the submissions, the judge posted the plea to April 17 for passing orders.