ED opposes presence of lawyer during Satyendar Jain questioning, Delhi HC reserves judgment

Allowing a prayer made by Jain’s counsel on Tuesday, the Special Judge of Rouse Avenue Court in the remand order said: “It is directed that during the time of enquiry/interrogation from the accused, one advocate of the accused shall be allowed to remain present at a safe distance where from he can see the accused but not hear him.” The prayer had been “vehemently” opposed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represented the ED before the trial court.

Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, representing the ED, argued before the High Court that the permission granted by the trial court was contrary to various Supreme Court decisions and told the bench that the audio-video recording of the interrogation is being done. However, Raju told the court that Jain has said that he does not want audio-video recording. The agency has continued despite his objection, the court was told further.

“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,” submitted Raju.

The ED also told the court that there is no allegation that he was threatened or beaten. “The medical checkup is happening twice a day,” submitted Raju.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Jain, described it as an “extraordinary case”, saying that the prosecution has filed the petition despite the law being 100 per cent against them. “It makes out the animus of prosecution (against Jain),” said Singhvi.

Arguing that the courts in various decisions have evolved a system where the interrogation takes place at an inaudible but visible distance, Singhvi said that the prosecution has shown the “affection” – referring to the filing of the petition – only because Jain belongs to a particular party. Singhvi also 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.

“Just because the name of a politician is there, we had to spend 45 minutes…,” submitted Singhvi, while referring to the time taken by ED to argue its case.

The ED had arrested Jain on May 30 on the basis of a case registered by the CBI in August 2017 under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He is accused of having laundered money through five companies allegedly linked to him. ED’s case is that Jain acquired assets from 2015 to 2017, which were “disproportionate to his known sources of income”. Jain’s counsel argued that his role in the companies was in a consultative capacity and he was given shares in the companies for his services.