Take steps to withdraw from website press release against FIITJEE: Delhi HC to ED

Counsel for respondent- Directorate of Enforcement, on instructions, submits that the Department shall take appropriate steps to withdraw the Press Release in question from the website without there being any orders on the merits or conformity of the Office Memorandum, 2010 or otherwise, the court said in the order.

The Delhi High Court has asked the Enforcement Directorate to take steps to withdraw from its website a press release having ''judgemental aspersions'' in connection with its probe against FIITJEE coaching institute. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passed the direction on May 6 on a petition by the coaching institute. After the Enforcement Directorate (ED) said it would withdraw the release issued by it last year, the court closed the proceedings on the petition noting that in view of ED's statement, the petition was infructuous and granted seven days to the agency to take necessary steps. ''Counsel for respondent- Directorate of Enforcement, on instructions, submits that the Department shall take appropriate steps to withdraw the Press Release in question from the website without there being any orders on the merits or conformity of the Office Memorandum, 2010 or otherwise,'' the court said in the order. ''Let the steps be taken by the respondents within a period of 7 days from today,'' it added. The coaching institute alleged that several ''presumptions and assumptions'' were made by the ED in the release, which were completely beyond its jurisdiction and in violation of a 2010 office memorandum by the Union Home Ministry. On March 18, the court had said that a perusal of the press release prima facie indicated that ED made ''judgmental aspersions'', even though clause VII of the MHA's Office Memorandum dated October 1, 2010, clearly stated that no opinionated and judgmental statements should be made by the police while briefing the media. The ED submitted that the press release was a culmination of all the material collected by it so far. It stated that there was a ''large-scale conspiracy and fraud committed'' by the petitioner, which led to ''multiple FIRs in different states''. The court had, however, clarified that it was not adjudicating on the gravity of the alleged offence, and was only called upon to rule as to whether the press release fulfilled the criteria laid down in the office memorandum. It then granted time to the ED counsel to take instructions on whether the agency would like to revise the press release or have a final adjudication in court.