ED threatened Niranjan with suspension, HC told

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, March 15

Senior advocate Anupam Gupta, appearing for Enforcement Directorate (ED) Deputy Director Niranjan Singh, has told the Punjab and Haryana High Court that the agency, which is probing drug cases, threatened the officer with suspension if he failed to change his counsel.

Gupta told the Division Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Shekher Dhawan that the High Court had in November last year directed a probe into former minister Bikram Singh Majithia’s role, resulting in revival of pressure on Niranjan. The officer had examined Majithia as part of the investigation.

Gupta also told the Bench that the State was not serious about taking action against Majithia. The assertion came after ED counsel Ranjana Shahi placed before the Bench a letter by Niranjan asking Gupta not to represent him further as his transfer stood revoked.

Gupta said the letter already stood withdrawn, adding that the ED was trying to interfere in the judicial process, an action which verged on contempt of court.

Gupta said Niranjan was threatened by senior officers with outright suspension if he did not disengage him, even as Shahi stated that Niranjan was only told to engage a lawyer authorised by the agency.

During the hearing, Niranjan submitted a status report in a sealed cover. After going through the report, the Bench asked the ED to file a fresh status report on the next date of hearing.

The Bench also asked the Ministry of External Affairs to expedite the process of extradition of persons “whose details have been forwarded by the Punjab Police”. The ministry, too, was asked to file a fresh status report particularly on “silver notices” and “letter of repatriation”.

The Bench asked Assistant Solicitor General of India Chetan Mittal to seek information on proceedings under Section 138 of the Income Tax Act regarding “disclosure of information respecting assessees”.

The Bench was told that a letter was sent by the Income Tax Department to Niranjan that disclosure of information in respect of the assessees asked by him would lead to violation of Section 138.

The case will come up for further hearing on May 9.