The court articulated that the petitioner must be made aware of the reasons for his summons, including whether his appearance is required as an accused or as a witness. On Wednesday, the Rajasthan High Court nullified the summons served by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to Mewaram Jain, who is contesting the upcoming state assembly elections from Barmer.
The directive had summoned him to the ED office in Jaipur. With the state elections imminent on November 25, Justice Farjand Ali observed that delaying the summons for seven days would not detrimentally impact the money laundering investigation.
The court found the summons to be unsuitable given the situation, emphasizing that Jain’s presence in his electoral district was crucial due to the elections. The court declared, “I am of the opinion that the notice issued by the department against the petitioner during this time is not suitable given the circumstances.”
The court highlighted that expecting him to commute 500 kilometers to Jaipur and back, particularly without clarity on the summons’ purpose or his expected role in it, was both unreasonable and unfeasible. Additionally, the court recognized that the right to electioneering is part of the right to stand for election.
“The petitioner, being a state legislative assembly candidate in our democratic system, has his right to campaign inherently included in his right to contest. Postponing the contested summons for around seven days will not negatively affect the ongoing proceedings,” the court stated.
Regarding the summons, the court expressed that if the petitioner is the accused, he deserves to know the details of the charges against him. The court also mentioned that if the petitioner is to make a statement in response to a summons, he should be apprised of the precise objectives and topics that necessitate his presence, enabling him to gather the necessary information to comply with the summons.
“At minimum, the petitioner should be informed of the nature of the charges if he is the accused, or if his testimony is required, he should understand the specific reasons and issues that require his attendance, allowing him to prepare adequately before leaving Barmer to fulfill the ED’s summons,” the court noted. Thus, the court concluded that forcing the petitioner to adhere to the summons would be unproductive.
Consequently, the court quashed the summons, permitting the ED to issue a new notice with detailed explanations for any date after December 3. The judgment concluded by noting, “It is implicit that the petitioner would willingly reappear before this court to address any further complaints.”
