[ad_1]
NEW DELHI: Questioning the motive of some politicians who approached the Supreme Court challenging the extension given to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) chief, the Centre on Monday told the court that PILs filed by TMC leader Mahua Moitra and Congress politician Randeep Singh Surjewala were not bona fide and called them a “pressure tactic”.
Taking a dig at politician-petitioners, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contended before a bench of Chief Justice U U Lalit and Justice S Ravindra Bhat that these PILs were filed because some political leaders of their parties were facing the heat of the probe. “These PILs are not bona fide PILs but were filed as pressure tactics as some of their senior leaders are being probed by the ED,” Mehta told the bench.
“The PIL is clearly motivated and is admittedly intended to scuttle the legitimate statutory investigation being carried out by the ED against politically exposed persons,” the Centre said in its affidavit.
The bench appointed senior advocate K V Viswananthan as amicus curiae to assist the court in adjudicating the issue on a batch of petitions challenging extension of ED director Sanjay Kumar Mishra.
Taking a dig at politician-petitioners, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contended before a bench of Chief Justice U U Lalit and Justice S Ravindra Bhat that these PILs were filed because some political leaders of their parties were facing the heat of the probe. “These PILs are not bona fide PILs but were filed as pressure tactics as some of their senior leaders are being probed by the ED,” Mehta told the bench.
“The PIL is clearly motivated and is admittedly intended to scuttle the legitimate statutory investigation being carried out by the ED against politically exposed persons,” the Centre said in its affidavit.
The bench appointed senior advocate K V Viswananthan as amicus curiae to assist the court in adjudicating the issue on a batch of petitions challenging extension of ED director Sanjay Kumar Mishra.
[ad_2]
Source link
