New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its order on the plea of Punjab Cabinet Minister Sanjeev Arora, arrested in a money laundering case being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), seeking bail on medical grounds and permission to undergo treatment at either Fortis Hospital or Medanta Hospital in Gurugram instead of AIIMS, New Delhi.
A bench of Justices SC Sharma and N.K. Singh reserved its verdict after hearing detailed submissions from both sides on Arora’s medical condition and his request to undergo treatment at a private hospital while remaining in judicial custody.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Arora, argued that although the AIIMS Medical Board had described the petitioner as “clinically stable”, it had itself advised coronary angiography for further evaluation, making it inappropriate to send him back to jail without further treatment.
Taking the Justice Sharma-led Bench through Arora’s medical records, Rohatgi referred to his history of diabetes, hypertension, renal transplant, heart failure, pulmonary embolism and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40 per cent, contending that these ailments warranted immediate medical attention.
He further argued that Article 21 of the Constitution entitled Arora to receive treatment at a hospital of his choice even while remaining in custody.
“I am entitled under Article 21 to be treated in my own hospital, by my own doctor,” Rohatgi submitted, adding that Arora was “not asking to be released” and that “a policeman can remain outside the hospital”.
Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the senior counsel contended that “a patient is entitled to be treated in a hospital of his own choice” and argued that there was no justification for denying treatment at a private hospital merely because AIIMS was a government institution.
Opposing the plea, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the ED, submitted that the AIIMS Medical Board had categorically found Arora to be clinically stable and had discharged him with advice for angiography as and when medically required.
He assured the apex court that the authorities would ensure all necessary treatment was provided.
“Either today or tomorrow we’re taking him for angiography. If the condition is not good, the hospital will say so and give him all medical facilities,” the Centre’s law officer submitted.
He further argued that ordinary prisoners are routinely treated in government hospitals and Arora could not claim a special privilege merely because he preferred a private medical facility.
Last week, the Supreme Court had directed the Director of AIIMS, New Delhi, to constitute a Medical Board to examine Arora after the ED stated that it had no objection to such an examination.
In its July 20 order, the apex court had also directed the jail authorities to shift him to AIIMS for medical evaluation and sought the Board’s report within two days. When the matter was taken up on July 24, the Justice Sharma-led Bench recorded that the medical report had been filed in compliance with its earlier order but had not been placed on record. It directed the top court registry to place the report on record, supply copies to both sides, and posted the matter for hearing on July 28.
Arora’s regular bail plea had earlier been rejected by the Special PMLA Court on June 15. He subsequently approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
On July 7, the High Court granted the ED time to file a status report and adjourned the matter to August 5.
The ED arrested Arora on May 9 under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in connection with an alleged Rs 100 crore GST fraud linked to the sale of mobile phones. He is currently in judicial custody.
The probe agency has claimed that the case involves money laundering connected with Hampton Sky Realty, while Arora and the company have denied the allegations, maintaining that the company has fully complied with applicable laws and is itself a victim of the alleged supplier-side fraud.
Before the apex court, senior advocates Rohatgi and Puneet Bali appeared on behalf of the petitioner. They were assisted by advocate-on-record Aditya Soni.
(IANS)
