CHENNAI : A writ plea from Nalini, wife of former Union Finance Minister P Chidambaram, to quash the Enforcement Directorate (ED) summons asking her to appear before it in connection with the Sharadha Chit funds scam case in Kolkata, has been rejected.Justice S M Subramaniam, who rejected the plea said exemption cannot be sought for in a routine manner citing gender. Undoubtedly section 160 of CrPC provides for exemption to women for participating in the investigation process and cannot be called to participate in the inquiry in the investigating officer’s office. In normal circumstances, every such exemption can never be construed as an absolute prohibition. The exceptions are not mandatory and subject to facts and circumstances, the judge said.
“This court has no reason to believe that exemption is to be extended to the petitioner, who is a senior advocate actively practicing before the SC and High Courts, for purpose of her non-participation in the investigation process by appearing in person,” the judge added. On September 7, 2016 ED had issued summons to Nalini for receiving Rs 1 crore as fee from the promoters of Sharadha Group in connection with Saradha chit scam case.
Assailing the same, Nalini submitted that the summons was illegal, since section 160 CrPC stated that a woman should not be summoned to the police station or any other place. Instead, the inquiry should be conducted only at her residence, she argued.In his 145-page judgment, Justice Subramaniam said based on gender, the exemption cannot be sought for in a routine manner.
The language used in sec 160 CrPC that “no woman shall be required” does not grant total and absolute exemption of the appearance. Adopting the principles of constructive interpretation, the judge said he is of the opinion that ‘not required’ means only in certain circumstances.
Therefore, the exemption is not absolute and it is subject to certain facts and circumstances that are to be assessed by the IO. In case, where a woman is sick and unable to move from one place to another or bedridden, then the IO should not direct her to travel a long distance. In such cases alone, CrPC proviso can be invoked by the authorities as well as the person who is incapable of travelling or otherwise incapable of attending the IO’s office, the judge said.