1. Challenge to the court's authority to consider documents produced in a sealed cover by an enforcement agency not previously disclosed to the petitioner during interrogation. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 1211
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS)
R. BANUMATHI, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
P. CHIDAMBARAM – Petitioner (s)
VERSUS
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT – Respondent(s)
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 7523 of 2019
Important Points
The court has the power to consider documents produced before it, irrespective of whether the petitioner has been confronted with the documents during interrogation.
Subject
Court Procedure - Document Consideration
Headnote
Court's Power - Documents Produced by Directorate of Enforcement - Court directed the Directorate of Enforcement to produce documents in a sealed cover for the court's consideration, despite the petitioner not being confronted with the documents during interrogation.
Fact of the Case:
The court heard submissions from the Directorate of Enforcement and the petitioner's counsel regarding whether the court should consider documents produced by the Directorate of Enforcement, despite the petitioner not being confronted with the documents during interrogation.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the Directorate of Enforcement to produce the documents in a sealed cover with the authenticated seal, indicating that the decision to look into the documents would depend on the court's decision. Interim protection granted to the petitioner was to continue until the next hearing.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should consider documents produced by the Directorate of Enforcement, even if the petitioner had not been confronted with the documents during interrogation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the determination that it had the power to look into the documents produced before it, regardless of whether the petitioner had been confronted with the same.
Final Decision: The court directed the Directorate of Enforcement to produce the documents in a sealed cover and granted interim protection to the petitioner until the next hearing.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Kapil Sibal,Sr.Adv. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi,Sr.Adv. Mr. Arshdeep Singh Khurana,Adv. Mr. Kunal Vajani,Adv. Mr. Amit Bhandari,Adv. Mr. Adit Pujari,Adv. Mr. Varun Chopra,Adv. Mr. Hitesh Rai,Adv. Mr. Akshat Gupta,Adv. Mr. Ayush Agarwal,Adv. Mr. Karan Gogna,Adv. Mr. P.K. Dubey,Adv. Mr. Aman Singh Brar,Adv. Mr. Akshay Sahni,Adv. Mr. Raghav Tankha,Adv. Mr. Avishkar Singhavi,Adv. Mr. Aamir Khaan,Adv. Mr. Harpreet Kalsi,Adv. Ms. Shally Bhasin, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta,SG Mr. K.M. Natraj,ASG Ms. Sonia Mathur,Sr.Adv. Mr. Amit Mahajan, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Kapil Sibal,Sr.Adv. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi,Sr.Adv. Mr. Arshdeep Singh Khurana,Adv. Mr. Kunal Vajani,Adv. Mr. Amit Bhandari,Adv. Mr. Adit Pujari,Adv. Mr. Varun Chopra,Adv. Mr. Hitesh Rai,Adv. Mr. Akshat Gupta,Adv. Mr. Ayush Agarwal,Adv. Mr. Karan Gogna,Adv. Mr. P.K. Dubey,Adv. Mr. Aman Singh Brar,Adv. Mr. Akshay Sahni,Adv. Mr. Raghav Tankha,Adv. Mr. Avishkar Singhavi,Adv. Mr. Aamir Khaan,Adv. Mr. Harpreet Kalsi,Adv. Ms. Shally Bhasin, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta,SG Mr. K.M. Natraj,ASG Ms. Sonia Mathur,Sr.Adv. Mr. Amit Mahajan, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Whether the court can examine documents produced in a sealed cover regardless of whether the petitioner was confronted with them during interrogation. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. The decision to examine documents produced in a sealed cover depends on the court's subsequent determination. (Para 6 )
4. The court possesses the discretion to decide whether to examine documents produced in a sealed cover, irrespective of prior confrontation during interrogation. (Para 6 )
5. Respondent directed to produce documents in a sealed cover; interim protection extended; matter listed for orders. (Para 5 , 7 , 8 )
6. Can a court examine documents produced in a sealed cover if the petitioner was not confronted with them during interrogation?
The court's decision to examine documents produced in a sealed cover depends on the court's own determination. (Para 6 )
ORDER
1. We have heard the submission of Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General, assisted by Mr. Amit Mahajan, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent-Directorate of Enforcement.
2. We have heard the reply submission of learned senior counsel, Mr. Kapil Sibal and Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, assisted by Mr. Arshdeep Singh Khurana, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner.
3. The arguments were advanced on the question - “Whether the Court is to look into the documents, produced in a sealed cover by the respondent-Directorate of Enforcement, when the petitioner has not been confronted with the said documents during the interrogation on 19.12.2018, 07.01.2019, 21.01.2019 and also on the subsequent dates”.
4. The contention advanced on behalf of the Directorate of Enforcement is that the Court has the power to look into the documents whether or not the petitioner has been confronted or not with the same and in this regard reliance has been placed on number of judgments to substantiate the contention that the Court can always look into the documents produced before it, in order to appreciate the contention.
5. Without prejudice to the contentions of both the parties, we direct the respondent-Directorate of Enforcement to produce the documents in a sealed cover with the authenticated seal of the Directorate of Enforcement.
6. Whether to look into the documents or not will depend upon the decision which this Court would take.
7. List the matter on Thursday, the 05th September, 2019, “For Orders”.
8. Interim protection granted to the petitioner on 23.08.2019 to continue till that date.
