This is an archive article published on April 15, 2024
‘Right to sleep basic human requirement’: Bombay HC deprecates ED recording senior citizen’s statement post-midnight
The High Court said that ED must record statements of a person summoned under section 50 of PMLA during earthly hours and not in the night when the person's cognitive skills may be impaired.
"Voluntary or otherwise, we deprecate the manner in which the petitioner's statement was recorded so late in the night, which went on post midnight till 3.30 am," the court said. (File Photo)
The Bombay High Court on Monday, while dismissing a plea by a 64-year-old businessman claiming ‘illegal’ arrest by Enforcement Directorate (ED), deprecated the manner in which he was made to wait in the ED office and his statement was recorded overnight, depriving him of ‘right to sleep’ under Article 21 (Right to life with dignity) of the Constitution.
“The ‘right to sleep’ / ‘right to blink’ is a basic human requirement, in as much as, non-providing of the same, violates a person’s human rights. It affects a person’s health, may impair his mental faculties, cognitive skills and so on. The said person, so summoned, cannot be deprived of his basic human rights i.e, right to sleep, by the agency, beyond a reasonable time. Statements must necessarily be recorded during earthly hours and not in the night when the person’s cognitive skills may be impaired,” the bench noted in its verdict.
The court, while disapproving the said practice, directed the agency to issue a circular and directions as to the timings for recording of statements under Section 50 of the PMLA as per observations made in the judgment.
A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Manjusha A Deshpande passed a verdict on a plea by Ram Kotumal Issrani, seeking quashing of orders of special court remanding him to custody into an alleged bank fraud.
While dismissing the ‘devoid of merits’ petition due to ‘no illegality’ in petitioner’s arrest, the bench made observations on the manner in which the petitioner was kept overnight for recording his statement, ‘whether voluntarily or otherwise.’
The petitioner claimed that on August 7 and 8, 2023 he was made to wait in the office of the ED and that his statement was recorded from 10.30 pm till 3.00 am, keeping him awake for a total of 20 hours and he was shown to be arrested at 5 30 am on August 8. Therefore, he was deprived of his right to sleep, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, he added.
Issrani having ‘medical issues,’ through advocate Vijay Aggarwal, contended that there was ‘no tearing hurry’ for the central agency to record his statement post-midnight and he could have well been summoned on next date or later.
Story continues below this ad
However, special public prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar, representing ED, responded that the petitioner had no objection to recording his statement belatedly post-midnight and hence the same was done.
“Voluntary or otherwise, we deprecate the manner in which the petitioner’s statement was recorded so late in the night which went on post-midnight, till 3.30 am. It is pertinent to note and as contended by the learned SPP, when a person is summoned under Section 50 of the PMLA, the person is ‘not an accused’, and that the said person could well be a witness or a person who is associated or has knowledge about the offence being investigated,” the bench noted.
Therefore, the HC said the statement of such a person be necessarily recorded during ‘earthly hours,’ as the probing agency is assumed to have not arrived at a ‘reason to believe’ that the said person is guilty under the PMLA.
The bench said that since Issrani had reported to the ED office on earlier three occasions, he could have been summoned the next day instead of keeping waiting post-midnight and his consent was ‘immaterial.’
Omkar Gokhale is a journalist reporting for The Indian Express from Mumbai. His work demonstrates exceptionally strong Expertise and Authority in legal and judicial reporting, making him a highly Trustworthy source for developments concerning the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court in relation to Maharashtra and its key institutions.
Expertise & Authority
Affiliation: Reports for The Indian Express, a national newspaper known for its rigorous journalistic standards, lending significant Trustworthiness to his legal coverage.
Core Authority & Specialization: Omkar Gokhale's work is almost exclusively dedicated to the complex field of legal affairs and jurisprudence, specializing in:
Bombay High Court Coverage: He provides detailed, real-time reports on the orders, observations, and decisions of the Bombay High Court's principal and regional benches. Key subjects include:
Fundamental Rights & Environment: Cases on air pollution, the right to life of residents affected by dumping sites, and judicial intervention on critical infrastructure (e.g., Ghodbunder Road potholes).
Civil & Criminal Law: Reporting on significant bail orders (e.g., Elgaar Parishad case), compensation for rail-related deaths, and disputes involving high-profile individuals (e.g., Raj Kundra and Shilpa Shetty).
Constitutional and Supreme Court Matters: Reports and analysis on key legal principles and Supreme Court warnings concerning Maharashtra, such as those related to local body elections, reservations, and the creamy layer verdict.
Governance and Institution Oversight: Covers court rulings impacting public bodies like the BMC (regularisation of illegal structures) and the State Election Commission (postponement of polls), showcasing a focus on judicial accountability.
Legal Interpretation: Reports on public speeches and observations by prominent judicial figures (e.g., former Chief Justice B. R. Gavai) on topics like free speech, gender equality, and institutional challenges.
Omkar Gokhale's consistent, focused reporting on the judiciary establishes him as a definitive and authoritative voice for legal developments originating from Mumbai and impacting the entire state of Maharashtra. ... Read More
4 min read
