New Delhi, March 28 : The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Friday won the second bout in the Delhi High Court against former External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh and son Jagat, as the court said that the procedure followed by the agency against the two in the alleged foreign exchange violations in the Iraqi oil-for-food scam case is correct. The court also turned down the demand of the two to access copies of all the documents related to the multi-million dollar scam.

The first round of defeat for the father-son duo came in July 2007 when the High Court had similarly refused to direct the release of 83 documents, in the possession of the ED, including those compiled by the Special Envoy appointed by the Government, Virendra Dayal. Justice B D Ahamed, in his judgment, had then observed that there was no prevalent law in the country, which compels the prosecution to reveal all documentary evidence to the accused, that too, “before the commencement of the inquiry proceedings”.

The Singhs had then gone in appeal before a Bench headed by Justice T S Thakur, contending they were indeed entitled to “demand copies of even such documents not relied upon by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with the inquiry”.

They had primarily sought copies of the Volcker Committee Report on the Oil-for-Food programme of the United Nations in Iraq and report of the Justice R S Pathak inquiry committee on the alleged kickbacks received by many in India.

In their two-pronged challenge against Justice Ahamed’s order, the Singhs, through senior counsel Arvind Nigam, argued that a “public authority” like the ED was duty-bound to make available “any document in its possession regardless of the fact whether the said document was relied upon or not”.

The agency was obliged to afford the Singhs with a “personal hearing before the inquiry” itself, Nigam had contended. “The petitioners (Singhs) were entitled to prove their innocence and demand closure of proceedings on the basis of the documents available with the Enforcement Directorate,” the counsel argued.

But the Bench, acknowledging the submissions made by Additional Solicitor General, appearing for ED, construed Singhs’ claims as “wholly misconceived” and agreed that they “could not be allowed to make a roving enquiry” into the documents.

The Bench then dismissed Singhs’ insistence for “disclosure of all documents” pertaining to scam as “legally incorrect.” It added that Singhs’ claim for a personal hearing before the commencement of the inquiry was unfounded in law.

Refusing to interfere with the ED’s decision to issue showcause notice and start an inquiry against the Singhs, the court observed: “The adjudicating authority had applied its mind to the material placed before it and come to a prima facie conclusion that an inquiry under Section 13 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) is warranted.”

The court observed that “enough material” to be relied upon by the ED had already been sent to the Singhs with the show-cause notice.

The court has fixed April 24, 2008 as next date of hearing.