The Enforcement Directorate on Tuesday claimed before the Supreme Court that journalist Rana Ayyub had collected crores through crowdfunding platforms for slum dwellers, Covid-19, and some work in Assam, but used it for “personal enjoyment, luxuries and pleasure".
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED opposed before a bench of Justices V Ramasubramanian and J B Pardiwala a writ petition filed by Ayyub against the summons issued by a Ghaziabad court in connection with a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case.
The court reserved its judgement in the matter.
During the arguments, advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for Ayyub, contended her client can't be deprived of personal liberty by a procedure not authorised by law.
Grover said the ED has attached her client’s personal bank account in HDFC bank at Navi Mumbai in which around Rs 1 crore was lying. She said since her account is in Navi Mumbai and she lived over there, the Ghaziabad court can't exercise jurisdiction to try the offence.
"There is a threat to my personal liberty, there is no authority in law to issue summons, I never shied away from facing law," she said, referring to the Supreme Court's judgement in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary. She said the special court has to be set up in the area where the offence has been committed.
She also claimed complainant Vikas Pandey, a Hindu IT cell member, has no grievance, he has not been cheated by her.
Mehta, on the other hand, said over Rs 1 crore was collected by Ayyub and Rs 50 Lakh was transferred to a fixed deposit, and even after the first campaign was over, she kept receiving money.
“We found that money was diverted and used for personal enjoyment, luxuries and pleasure. People were donating crores without knowing where money was going,” he said.
Mehta, for his part, further submitted that a prosecution complaint was filed in the Ghaziabad court by the agency as part of the cause of action had arisen in Uttar Pradesh, where many people, including from Ghaziabad, donated money for her crowdfunding campaign.
He said the money laundering offence is not an independent offence and is always connected to a scheduled offence for which an FIR was lodged at Indirapuram police station of Ghaziabad.
Mehta also alleged that money was shown by fake bills, and groceries among others, and was used for personal luxury items and consumption.
Citing Ayyub’s counsel arguments, Mehta emphasized that if a person chose to launder money in Singapore or Thiruvananthapuram, the agency has to go there and lodge a case. He said, "this is not the scheme of the law".
In the end, Mehta also said a judicial order of summons cannot be subjected to a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution.
On January 25, the court had asked the Ghaziabad court which issued a summons against journalist Rana Ayyub for January 27 to defer its hearing in the case.