Addressing a press conference at the party headquarters, AAP’s senior leader and Delhi’s Cabinet Minister, Shri Saurabh Bharadwaj, expressed apprehension over recent events involving the absence of audio recordings.
Shri Saurabh Bharadwaj questions why the ED hasn’t adhered to the Supreme Court’s orders to record witness statements in Video and Audio. He highlights that the ED has not revealed who instructed ED to not record audio , be it a minister or an officer. Shri Bharadwaj asserts that the ED must release an official statement, including the name, position, and signature of the responsible officer.
Shri Saurabh Bharadwaj said that yesterday our PM Narendra Modi delivered a long speech in the parliament, which was aired on all news channels. However, imagine how it would have felt if there was no audio in that speech. The Prime Minister would have only been visible gesturing, and asking questions. No news channel broadcasts such voiceless videos on their channels, the value of such voiceless videos of the Prime Minister would not have remained intact.
Referring to a case in Hon’ble Supreme Court the Senior AAP leader mentioned an order given by the Supreme Court on December 2, 2020. “The Supreme Court’s strict directive is that during any investigation, investigating agencies must record the audio and video while taking statements, so that it can be verified that the statement given by the witness was voluntary and there was no pressure from the investigating agency. However, despite the Supreme Court’s strict orders, the central government-controlled ED has ignored the Supreme Court’s order by not recording the audio of statements of witnesses and accused in the ongoing alleged cases against Aam Aadmi Party leaders,” he added.
Shri Saurabh Bharadwaj mentioned, “In any case, it is essential to know that Statements (whether the person who can be a witness or an accused) given by them is not obtained through coercion, threats, or pressure. It is crucial to have audio and video recordings to verify these facts. However, in this case, there is no audio recording. When there is no audio recording, how will it be known whether the statements presented by the ED in writing before the court were spoken by the witness or not? Not only in the case of December 2, 2020, but also in this Excuse matter, on July 19, 2023, the court has clearly stated that the statements of witnesses should be fully recorded. Despite this, the audio recording of the witness’s statement has not been done by the ED.”
Questioning the ‘irresponsible actions’ of the ED, he said that despite the court’s strict orders in this case, the ED has not audio recorded the witness’s statement. It is amusing that while the ED issues statements, neither does it mention the name of any officer nor are there any signatures of officers. Therefore, it is not known who is issuing these statements on behalf of the ED. If the ED has not engaged in any unconstitutional activities, then the statement should be officially issued by the ED, including the name, position, and signature of the officer who is releasing the statement on behalf of the ED.
Shri Saurabh Bhardwaj referred to a statement recently given by the Lieutenant Governor’s office, in which it was stated that funding for the Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR) would be stopped. This news was widely discussed in all newspapers. However, later, the Lieutenant Governor denied making any such statement. Thus, the authenticity of the statement issued by the ED also remains questionable until the name, position, and signature of the issuing officer are included.
Shri Saurabh Bhardwaj, through the media, questioned the BJP-led central government and officials of the ED, asking them to officially state which minister or officer has given the directions to No record the audio of witnesses/ accused statement. Even the Supreme Court was apprehensive that government agencies can use force or coercion to extract statements, that’s the reason ghat Supreme Court has clearly stated in its orders that along with video recording, audio recording should also be done while taking the witness’s statement. So, the ED should explain why, despite the strict orders of the Supreme Court, the audio recording of the witness’s statement was not done.
