By IANS,
New Delhi : The Supreme Court Friday asked the Delhi Police Commissioner to be apprised of the steps taken over an Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) professor’s complaint of alleged threat to him by an enforcement directorate official.
The complaint was filed by S.K. Dubey, director of IIT-Kharagpur, who alleged to have been threatened by an official of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for writing to the prime minister
against alleged cover-up in money laundering cases.
Dubey in his letter had accused ED Director Arun Mathur and other officials of indulging in cover-up in money laundering cases.
The apex court bench of Justice B. Sudarshan Reddy and Justice S.S. Nijjar directed the police commissioner to file an affidavit stating what action has been taken on the complaint.
The court asked the police commissioner if an FIR (first information report) was filed on the basis of Dubey’s complaint sent by e-mail to him and the south district deputy commissioner of police.
In his email, Dubey had expressed concern over the safety and security of his family members.
Dubey is among the several eminent citizens, including former top police officer Julius Riberio and former chief election commissioner J.M. Lyngdoh, who wrote to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh over the alleged involvement of Arun Mathur and other ED officers Prabha Kant and S.K. Sawhney in the cover-up.
The letter said the officials accepted hospitality of a Kolkata based non-banking financial company that was under the ED scanner.
Senior counsel Rajiv Dhavan, appearing for the complainants, said that the conduct of “Arun Mathur and some of his colleagues does not inspire confidence (that their investigation into money laundering cases would reach logical conclusion).”
The letter said that Mathur and other officials should not be associated with the probe into money laundering through foreign banks based in tax havens.
The court was told that Prabha Kant met Dubey and asked him to withdraw the letter, failing which the ED director would send the police and the Intelligence Bureau after him.
Additional affidavit filed before the apex court said that Kant repeatedly dropped the name of Arun Mathur as he kept on threatening.
The court was told that some time after handing down the threats, Kant called Dubey asking him if he has decided to withdraw the letter to the prime minister.
Taking a serious view of the threat by the official, the court said, “What has been stated in the affidavit is very serious. We are concerned about it. These things can’t be allowed. More so when the hearing of the matter is going on.”
As the court was being apprised of the incident, Justice Reddy asked Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium if the said official was still with the ED and involved in the investigations.
When the court asked, “Is this gentleman still associated with the probe?”, the solicitor general said, “He is posted in Delhi and not associated with the investigation.”
The solicitor general told the court that he was under instruction from the centre to deny the content of the affidavit filed on behalf of the eminent citizens alleging attempts at gagging them.
There is no “pre-emptive gagging” of the people, the court was told.
Subramanium also said, “People must take responsibility for their own action”, hinting the government’s unwillingness to carry the baggage of Prabha Kant.
In the face of emphatic denial by the centre, the court asked the government to file an affidavit stating its position on the matter raised by the eminent citizens in their application.