The Madras High Court on Tuesday dismissed a couple of writ appeals preferred by former Union Minister P. Chidambaram’s wife Nalini Chidambaram against a single judge’s refusal to forbear Enforcement Directorate (ED) officials in Kolkata from taking “any coercive step or action or proceeding” against her under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) of 2002 in connection with professional legal fees received by her from Saradha Realty.
A Division Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Anand Venkatesh held that the ED officials were empowered to summon any person to their office for inquiry under the PMLA. It said the appellant could not claim exemption from appearance under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which restrains police officers from requiring attendance of women and children below 15 years of age at any place other than the place where they reside.
“We are of the view that inasmuch as there is no conflict between Section 52 of the PMLA and Section 160 of the Code, it is not mandatory, that in all cases, a woman shall never be called whatever be her involvement and status... Since a definition of the word ‘person’ would include a woman, it is certainly open to the authority to take a call either to summon her physically or otherwise through an agent,” the judges said.
The appeals had been preferred against orders passed by Justice S.M. Subramaniam on Ms. Chidambaram’s writ petitions on April 24. The single judge too had said the petitioner, being a senior advocate with lucrative practice in various High Courts as well as the Supreme Court, could not be heard to say that she was not capable of appearing in person for investigation.
“This court is aware of the fact that in certain circumstances, the women in this country are vulnerable. However, we are a fast-growing developing nation wherein women empowerment is provided in all walks of life... Therefore, this court has to consider the position, status and the capacity of a woman for the purpose of granting any exemption from participating or for personal appearance in investigation of such cases.
“This court expects that a respected senior advocate like the writ petitioner should not shy away from cooperating for an effective investigation of offences committed under the provisions of the PMLA... The magnitude of the alleged money laundering in the present case is running to several thousand crore, and therefore, certainly it is required of persons like the writ petitioner, who is of high status, to participate in the investigation process,” the judge had said.