Telangana CM’s daughter and Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K. Kavitha has moved the Supreme Court, challenging ED summons in relation to the Delhi Excise Policy case on Wednesday.
Kavitha was questioned by the agency on March 11 and is required to appear again tomorrow. The case was brought before CJI DY Chandrachud, who refused to hear it immediately and scheduled a hearing for March 24.
Kavitha, who currently an MLA from the Nizamabad Local Bodies Constituency, claims that she is not named in the FIR and that the summons violates Section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which states that no woman shall be required to appear as a witness anywhere other than where she resides. Kavitha has been asked to appear before the ED in Delhi, purportedly to confront her with an arrestee in the case.
Kavitha also stated that the ED simply handed her very short notice for appearance and declined her requests to be examined at her home or to have the examination date extended. As a result, on March 11, she appeared before ED.
During this appearance, the former MP affirms to be exposed to numerous lawless acts by the ED. She claims she was forced to turn over her cellphone, but the summons she received under Sections 50(2) and 50(3) of the PMLA does not require her to do so. The agency is said to have then taken her device and questioned her, a woman, much after after sunset. She added that no confrontation with any arrestee was done.
Also, she was handed over another summons to appear on March 16, i.e., tomorrow.
Kavitha further claimed that the ED purposefully disclosed her personal contact information when submitting a remand application qua against one of the suspects in the case, and that the CBI then served a notice upon her and questioned her for over 7 hours.
According to her plea, the ED has used very coercive techniques and third-degree measures in conjunction with their purported investigations.
“There is no case against the petitioner. The sole ground on which the petitioner has been implicated is on account of specific statement of few people who have given incriminating statement qua themselves as well as allegedly against the petitioner. However, such comments have been taken out of threat and coercion, which is obvious from the fact that on 10.03.2023, one Mr. Arun Ramachandran Pillai, have retracted his statement. The credibility of the alleged remarks against the petitioner is under serious doubt,” the plea filed though Advocate Vandana Sehgal adds.
