The Supreme Court on Tuesday suggested Nirav Modi’s brother-in-law, Mainak Mehta, to provide the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) with a “Letter of Authority” for bank accounts under investigation by the CBI in connection with the Punjab National Bank (PNB) fraud case.
The matter was listed before a bench comprised of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha, and it is now listed for further hearing on February 9, 2023.
The CBI and the ED are both investigating the Punjab National Bank case against Nirav Modi and have filed charge sheets in the case.
Mehta is a British national who lives with his family in Hong Kong. On September 8, 2021, he returned to India and made his first appearance in court in Mumbai. After a few months, Mehta stated that his work in Hong Kong was pending and that his family, which included a wife, children, and elderly parents, needed him and he was allowed to return home.
The CBI had approached the Supreme Court in opposition to a Bombay High Court order allowing Mehta to travel to his home in Hong Kong.
ASG SV Raju, appearing on behalf of the CBI on Tuesday while challenging the Bombay High Court’s decision to allow him to travel to Hong Kong, stated, “The situation is as follows: the last time I requested a letter of authority from a learned friend, he refused. That is why we needed a Letters Rogatory (LR). We apprehend that large amount of money have been deposited in those accounts. He is refusing to give us access to the account. He is a foreign national, and his wife is Belgian. He will not return once he has left.”
The CBI issued Rogatory Letters (LR) to a Singapore court in order to obtain evidence against Mehta in the PNB Scam case. Letters Rogatory are documents that request through a foreign court to obtain evidence from a person living within the territorial jurisdiction of the requested court under the terms of a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) or on the basis of reciprocity if no such treaty exists.
When the bench asked why the CBI was not given a letter of authority, Sr Adv Amit Desai, appearing for Mehta, replied, “My life is going in this direction; I’ve been in India for a long time, away from home. The CBI makes false accusations. We have always worked together. We have done everything. We are willing to provide the letter of authority, but I will be required to stay in India for another year. The ED has determined that I am not a flight risk. I’m just saying let me go for a while and I’ll return when needed. Travel application has become an investigation.”
According to Mehta, he was only accused in the ED case, which is why he flew from Hong Kong to Mumbai. However, the CBI raised issues about Mehta’s failure to disclose transactions in bank accounts, including one in Singapore, as well as two transfers of USD 8.9 million and USD 1.8 million transferred by Nirav Modi’s father. The CBI stated that Mehta should share the details with it after which he might be considered for travelling abroad.
CJI DY Chandrachud questioned, “Are you willing to give the letter of authority? Mr Desai, we recommend that you either grant the request and provide the CBI with a Letter of Authority. Alternatively, we will hear the matter.”
Sr Adv Desai responded, saying, “There is no problem with non-cooperation. We’ve always worked together. Then the CBI comes in and says this. Give me interim relief to travel. A business meeting is taking place in Dubai for the first time since covid. Allow me to travel during this time.”
The bench, however, was not persuaded. DY Chandrachud, CJI, stated, “By doing so, we are dismissing CBI’s SLP without hearing the case. That’s not going to work. We cannot compel your client to provide the letter, but we will consider the SLP. You should consider whether your client wants to give you the letter of authority. We’ll give you some time to think about our suggestion to send the letter to CBI. Take it from us: we won’t hold it against you if you don’t give it. But you have until Tuesday to make a decision.”
If the letter was provided to the CBI, CJI Chandrachud also requested that ASG Raju complete the process within a reasonable time frame.
