New Delhi: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) Friday contended before the Delhi High Court that a trial court's order allowing the presence of a lawyer during the interrogation of Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain, arrested in a money laundering case, was contrary to various decisions of the Supreme Court.
The ED has challenged the trial court's May 31 order allowing the presence of a lawyer, at a distance, during Jain's interrogation in its custody from May 31 till June 9.
Justice Yogesh Khanna, who reserved the order on ED's plea, declined to stay the trial court's direction at this stage even as the agency argued that its petition would become infructuous as Jain's custody with it would come to an end on June 9.
The court said before passing the order, it will first go through the record. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S V Raju, representing the ED, contended that the permission granted by the trial court was contrary to various Supreme Court decisions and that an audio-video recording of the interrogation was being done.
He submitted that even though Jain has said he does not want an audio-video recording, the agency has continued doing so despite his objection.
Suppose in a hypothetical case, a person is beaten, his lawyer would say that he was beaten. We would say no. There would be a dispute but if the audio-video recording is there, this cannot happen. It is a better safeguard, he said.
The agency said there is no allegation that the AAP leader was threatened or beaten and that his medical checkup is being done twice a day.
The ED's counsel argued that the lawyer and Jain can make signs to each other and may share information.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Jain, opposed the agency's plea and said it was an extraordinary case as the prosecution has filed the petition despite the law being 100 per cent against them.
He said that the Supreme Court has consistently allowed a system where the lawyer is available at a distance but the prosecution was terming them mere orders.