Can those targeted in I-T raid be confined indefinitely, asks HC
CHENNAI, OCTOBER 27, 2018 00:00 IST
CHENNAI, OCTOBER 27, 2018 00:00 IST
Plea filed against confinement of mining baron Vaikundarajan and his family
Can the occupants of a building subjected to an Income Tax raid be confined for days together without any limitation if the raid takes too long a time to complete? The Madras High Court has decided to examine this larger question on a habeas corpus petition filed in connection with the confinement of beach sand mining baron S. Vaikundarajan and his family.
Justices C.T. Selvam and M. Nirmal Kumar raised the question when the petition preferred by the businessman’s co-in-law B. Kamaraj, 56, was taken up for urgent hearing on Friday.
‘Even phone off limits’
In his petition, the litigant stated that his daughter Sumana Velmurugan, her husband, child, father-in-law, brother-in-law were under confinement since Thursday morning. He claimed they were confined to two flats at a posh residential apartment at Egmore and were not allowed to move out or even use their phones. Pointing out that the total area of the two flats put together was only around 4,500 square feet, the petitioner wondered how the I-T sleuths could restrict the liberty of individuals without any end in sight.
Stating that his co-in-law was a leading industrialist, the petitioner said he came to know through newspaper reports that the I-T sleuths had seized some documents and money that had been kept in the flats. He claimed that the seized money was actually meant for disbursing Deepavali bonus to around 3,000 employees serving in various firms of the mining baron.
‘Unfair move’
Representing the petitioner, senior counsel A. Ramesh contended that it was unfair on the part of the officials to keep the occupants of the flats in confinement for more than 28 hours. He said the personal liberty of the individuals could not be curtailed indefinitely since any confinement beyond a reasonable time would amount to illegal detention.
However, Additional Solicitor General G. Rajagopalan informed the court that the search could not be completed within a day because it was being conducted on a massive scale spread over various residential and business premises of the mining baron and that the presence of the occupants was required to explain the recoveries made then and there.
“Otherwise, they might disown the properties,” the ASG said. He added that the officials were confident of completing the search either by Friday evening or Saturday morning. Further, stating that the close relatives and lawyers were allowed to meet the occupants, he gave an undertaking to the court that there was no bar on meeting the relatives.
The judges recorded the undertaking and adjourned the case to Monday for deciding the larger issue of indefinite confinement.
Can the occupants of a building subjected to an Income Tax raid be confined for days together without any limitation if the raid takes too long a time to complete? The Madras High Court has decided to examine this larger question on a habeas corpus petition filed in connection with the confinement of beach sand mining baron S. Vaikundarajan and his family.
Justices C.T. Selvam and M. Nirmal Kumar raised the question when the petition preferred by the businessman’s co-in-law B. Kamaraj, 56, was taken up for urgent hearing on Friday.
‘Even phone off limits’
In his petition, the litigant stated that his daughter Sumana Velmurugan, her husband, child, father-in-law, brother-in-law were under confinement since Thursday morning. He claimed they were confined to two flats at a posh residential apartment at Egmore and were not allowed to move out or even use their phones. Pointing out that the total area of the two flats put together was only around 4,500 square feet, the petitioner wondered how the I-T sleuths could restrict the liberty of individuals without any end in sight.
Stating that his co-in-law was a leading industrialist, the petitioner said he came to know through newspaper reports that the I-T sleuths had seized some documents and money that had been kept in the flats. He claimed that the seized money was actually meant for disbursing Deepavali bonus to around 3,000 employees serving in various firms of the mining baron.
‘Unfair move’
Representing the petitioner, senior counsel A. Ramesh contended that it was unfair on the part of the officials to keep the occupants of the flats in confinement for more than 28 hours. He said the personal liberty of the individuals could not be curtailed indefinitely since any confinement beyond a reasonable time would amount to illegal detention.
However, Additional Solicitor General G. Rajagopalan informed the court that the search could not be completed within a day because it was being conducted on a massive scale spread over various residential and business premises of the mining baron and that the presence of the occupants was required to explain the recoveries made then and there.
“Otherwise, they might disown the properties,” the ASG said. He added that the officials were confident of completing the search either by Friday evening or Saturday morning. Further, stating that the close relatives and lawyers were allowed to meet the occupants, he gave an undertaking to the court that there was no bar on meeting the relatives.
The judges recorded the undertaking and adjourned the case to Monday for deciding the larger issue of indefinite confinement.
No comments:
Post a Comment