Back
Expresses Reservations Over ED to Jaffer Sadiq, Declines to Interfere
Reservations and a Year-Long Gap
The on Wednesday expressed clear reservations about the 's decision to grant to former DMK functionary Jaffer Sadiq and his brother Mohamed Saleem in a case, yet declined to overturn the order simply because it had been passed more than a year ago. A bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed the ’s , while emphatically ruling that the High Court's decision “shall not be treated as a .”
The Web
The case stems from three registered by the and in New Delhi, Mumbai, and Chennai, involving alleged illegal export of narcotics—pseudoephedrine and ketamine—valued in large quantities. The ED claimed that Sadiq and Saleem handled by depositing substantial cash into their bank accounts, which their income tax returns did not justify. Sadiq was arrested in , and Saleem surrendered in .
The had granted in after finding that the accused’s continued incarceration would violate their under . The High Court noted that all properties allegedly acquired from had been attached, the investigation was complete, and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon.
A Delicate Balancing Act
Arguing for the ED, pressed the court to interfere, pointing to the gravity of the offences. , appearing for the respondents, defended the High Court’s reasoning.
The , while not agreeing fully with the High Court’s order, chose to maintain the . “On a view, we have our own reservation to the passed. However, the order having been passed more than a year back, we are not inclined to interfere with the same,” the bench observed.
Key Observations from the Bench
“On a view, we have our own reservation to the passed. However, the order having been passed more than a year back, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. We hold that the decision shall not be treated as a .”
The court’s directive that the order not be used as a underscores its discomfort with the legal reasoning, while the year-long delay prevented a reversal—a pragmatic acknowledgment that undoing a after such a period would cause disruption.
Final Verdict and Implications
The dismissed the , effectively allowing the to stand. The practical effect is that Sadiq and Saleem remain on , but the ED’s concerns have been noted. The ruling sends a signal that even if a lower court’s order is questionable, the may not intervene if the order has been in effect for a significant time, provided it does not become a binding . The case now proceeds to trial before the Principal Sessions Judge in Chennai, where the ED will have to prove its allegations on the merits.
