Court Orders CBI To Lift LOC Against Aakar Patel, Asks Director To Issue Apology

"Apart from the monetary loss, the applicant had suffered mental harassment," the court noted.

Former Amnesty International India head Aakar Patel was stopped from leaving India at the Bengaluru Airport.

(Photo Courtesy: Twitter/Aakar Patel)

A Delhi court, on Thursday, 7 April, directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to withdraw the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against Aakar Patel, chair of the Amnesty International India board, immediately. The court also directed the CBI to file a compliance report by 4 pm on Friday and said that certain directions had been issued to the CBI with regard to the same.

Further, noting that Patel's counsel had sought compensation for the loss caused to the applicant and that in the present case, "apart from the monetary loss, the applicant had suffered mental harassment," the court, in its order, asked the Director of CBI to tender an apology.

"The court is of the considered opinion that in this case, a written apology from the head of the CBI, ie Director, CBI, acknowledging the lapse on the part of his subordinate, to the applicant, would go a long way in not only healing the wounds of the applicant but also upholding the trust and confidence of the public in the premier institution."

Delhi court, in its written order

Earlier in the day, the court had reserved the order in a plea by Aakar Patel, challenging the Look Out Circular, and seeking permission to travel to the United States of America (USA).

The matter was heard by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Pawan Kumar of Rouse Avenue Court.

Previously, on Wednesday, the court had sought the CBI's response to Patel's plea. This came after Patel, during the early hours of Wednesday, was stopped at immigration at the Bengaluru Airport, and was told that he could not go any further as an LOC had been issued against him.

This was in connection with a case against Amnesty International, India, which pertains to alleged irregularities in foreign funding and a violation of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) in 2019.

WHAT ELSE DID THE COURT SAY?

The court also noted that the LOC in the present case was issued in violation of the guidelines laid down by the Delhi High Court and the office memorandum of the concerned ministry, and said:

"It is relevant to note that the stringent provisions of issuance of LOC has bearing upon the fundamental rights of the person."

The court also pointed out in its order that various high courts had retreated and observed that such measures should be taken cautiously and in exceptional circumstances.

Further, delving into the monetary loss incurred by Patel after he was not allowed to board the flight on Wednesday, the court said:

"It is correct that the discretion for moving the application of LOC lies with the investigating agency, but the discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily without any justifiable reasons or grounds. In the present scenario, the Director, CBI, is expected to sensitise the officials who are part of the issuance of LOC. It is further expected that accountability of the concerned officials in this case be fixed."

'THE ORDER IS UNPRECEDENTED': AAKAR PATEL'S LAWYER

Hailing the order as being "unprecedented", Patel's lawyer Advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir told The Quint:

"In order to provide immediate relief, I chose to file an application before the jurisdictional magistrate, which is also in compliance with the Delhi High Court in Sumer Singh Salkan’s case. And immediately upon bringing it to the notice of the Hon’ble court, in view of exigencies, the matter was fixed today, in order to save precious time."

"The Hon'ble court, upon submissions being made by me, has reflected and returned a very strong order, perhaps of a first kind in independent India, where the director of CBI has been directed to tender an apology to the applicant. The order, therefore, is unprecedented."

Advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir

Mir said that he, as a lawyer, welcomed such orders.

"Not only does it send a strong message to investigation agencies, that they have to take steps in according with law, and they cannot prosecute someone with a sense of complete impunity, as if they are going to meet no consequences; but it also restores faith in the Hon'ble courts, and institutions of courts, and for the general public at large, that even if citizens, non-citizens or any persons are railroaded by investigating authorities, the Courts and lawyers are always there to come to their aid and help."

WHAT DID PATEL'S COUNSEL ARGUE IN COURT?

Representing Aakar Patel, advocate Tanveer Ahmed Meer, demanded that the CBI demonstrated from its case diary if there was any attempt by Patel that prompted "any propensity or feeling" that he had not joined the investigation.

This was in response to the CBI's reply, which said, "Accused being an influential person, there was a possibility of him leaving the country and evading investigation."

Mir also pointed out that as the investigating officer had said that they had opened the LOC in order to thwart any attempt, they didn't know whether there would be any attempt yet.

Further, stating that the CBI could have at least let Patel know that it had issued an LOC against him, Mir said:

"What Mr Bahuguna (the IO) has done is put me (Patel) in a direct prejudice of Rs 3.87 lakh. I would request him to pay the amount from his salary."

The advocate went on to allege that there had been a breach of CBI manual and ethics in the investigation, and also asked:

"How is the departure of Patel, having been invited by Michigan, UC Berkley, detrimental to unity and integrity of India? How does he suffice the requirement of an exception?"

Referring to journalist Rana Ayyub's case, in which the Delhi High Court had, on 4 April, set aside the Enforcement Directorate's LOC against her, and allowed her to travel abroad subject to specified conditions, Mir said:

"Let another Rana Ayyub be written."

Further, Mir went on to claim that "at all parameters, they (the investigating authorities) are at fault."

WHAT ABOUT THE CBI?

"That the accused being an influential person who is well connected outside India, there was a probability of him leaving the country to evade prosecution. Accordingly, it was directed by CBI to open a Look Out Circular against the accused Aakar Patel to thwart any attempt, if any, by him to escape the process of law...to prevent him from leaving India."

CBI, in its written response to Aakar Patel's plea

Defending their stand, the CBI essentially made the following arguments in court:

• 26 crore rupees are involved (in connection with the case against Amnesty International, India)

• Aakar Patel is highly influential

• They are not demanding his arrest, only saying that he should not leave the country

However, prior to that, on being asked by the court if they issued notice during the investigation, the CBI officer said:

"He was busy when I first issued it. I issued it again and that's when he joined the investigation."

When the court asked if they had issued any other notices, besides the one, the officer said that they had issued a letter to Patel requesting some documents, and proceeded with the investigation when those were not received.

The court asked if they could then infer that the documents were not necessary, to which the CBI officer replied, "Not completely necessary."

In their written response, the agency had alleged:

"Amnesty had made several attempts to obtain prior permission or registration under FCRA. The same was not granted. In reaction to repeated denials, Amnesty used commercial methods to evade FCRA."

They had thereby gone on to state that investigation revealed that out of the 49 contracts executed by Amnesty International India, nine were in the nature of a Social Program falling under section 11(1) of FCRA. These contracts were executed by Amnesty International India with Amnesty (UK) over a specified period, against the total amount of 12.31 crore.

The agency further cited the investigation as revealing that out of the said nine contracts, six were executed by various office bearers in the organisation, on the directions of Aakar Patel, "the then Executive Director of the company, who was looking after the day to day affairs of the company."

"That during investigation other directors of the company were examined and have stated that Aakar Patel was the key person in the company and holding negotiations with Amnesty, UK," CBI said.

"It is, therefore, prayed that the objective of CBI for the opening of Look Out Circular against the accused person was to prevent him from escaping the process of law," CBI had added, seeking dismissal of Patel's plea.