Court’s Decision:
The Bombay High Court, while hearing a petition, directed the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) to ensure that the petitioner, a senior citizen, is questioned only during working hours. The court accepted SFIO’s statement that the petitioner would not be questioned beyond working hours on the scheduled day. The court further ordered that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner until the next hearing.
Facts:
The petitioner was summoned by SFIO for questioning related to Videocon and its associated companies. Due to his absence on the initially assigned date, he presented himself for questioning on October 22, 2024, where he was interrogated from 10:45 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The petitioner argued that such prolonged questioning infringes on his rights as a senior citizen and sought relief from the court.
Issues:
- Whether SFIO can legally summon and question the petitioner, a senior citizen, beyond regular working hours.
- Whether coercive action by SFIO should be restrained in light of the petitioner’s compliance with summons.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioner, represented by senior counsel, argued that prolonged questioning past working hours was unreasonable and unwarranted for a senior citizen. He referenced a circular issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which recommended that senior citizens and those with health issues be questioned only during “earthly hours” to avoid undue stress.
Respondent’s Arguments:
SFIO’s counsel sought time to respond formally through an affidavit-in-reply. However, during the hearing, SFIO assured the court that the petitioner would not be questioned beyond working hours on subsequent dates.
Analysis of the Law:
The court examined the guidelines outlined in the ED’s technical circular, which emphasized reasonable timing for summoning individuals, especially senior citizens and those with health concerns. The court also considered legal precedents surrounding humane treatment during interrogation.
Precedent Analysis:
The court referred to the Bombay High Court’s decision in Ram Kotumal Issrani v/s Directorate of Enforcement, which emphasized the importance of ensuring humane and reasonable treatment during investigations, particularly for senior citizens. The ED’s circular, based on this precedent, recommended adherence to working hours in questioning.
Court’s Reasoning:
The court acknowledged the petitioner’s concerns regarding undue stress due to prolonged questioning. It reasoned that, considering the petitioner’s age, questioning beyond regular working hours should be avoided to maintain fairness and reasonableness. The court found merit in the petitioner’s reliance on the ED circular and directed the SFIO to respect working hours while questioning the petitioner.
Conclusion:
The Bombay High Court granted interim relief to the petitioner, restraining SFIO from taking any coercive action until the next hearing scheduled for November 13, 2024. SFIO was further directed to file an affidavit-in-reply within two weeks.
Implications:
This order underscores the judiciary’s stance on safeguarding the rights of senior citizens and individuals with medical needs during investigative procedures. It serves as a reminder for investigative agencies to ensure that questioning practices align with humane standards, particularly for vulnerable individuals.
