On Tuesday, the High Court of Madras directed Indian born British robotic surgeon M. Senthil Nathan, 60, to appear for inquiry before the Enforcement Directorate (ED) officials in connection with the 2G spectrum case from Thursday & prove his bona fides by cooperating with the investigation.
After senior counsel, Sonia Mathur & Special Public Prosecutor G. Hema accused the surgeon of not having responded to several summonses issued for an inquiry, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh passed the interim order.
They claimed that he budged & appeared for inquiry only after issuance of a Look Out Circular.
Stating that the investigation agency, at the present stage, was not in a position to state whether he was being inquired as an accused or just a witness in the 2G spectrum case, the counsel said he was prevented from flying back to London only because the inquiry with him had not yet concluded.
Senior lawyer Satish Parasaran, representing the surgeon, said, his client had already been inquired for more than 40 hours & the investigators had full access to his mobile phones & e-mail accounts.
He also questioned the logic behind issuance of a LOC when the Enforcement Directorate was not sure whether he was an accused.
Further, pointing out that he was a British citizen & a busy surgeon who was most wanted by a number of patients back in London, the senior counsel said, it was not appropriate to prevent him from flying abroad. After hearing them, the judge directed the petitioner to prove his bona fide by attending some more inquiry sessions.
In his affidavit, Dr. Nathan said he had specialised in complex urological surgery & was working for the National Health Service in the University College of London. He also had his private practice at Harley Street & the London Clinic. He generally has 150 patient encounters a week & 10 to 15 complex surgeries.
In August 2018, he had received a notice from the ED seeking information in connection with an investigation into the affairs of a third party & he readily provided them. Subsequently, he was also asked to appear in India in person. However, he claimed to have provided all the details required, including documents, through his attorney since he could not travel to India on account of his professional obligations & temporary ill health.
He also repeated offered to take part in video conference or tele meetings & even offered to pay for the services. Nevertheless, the exact reason for his personal appearance was never made clear to him, he alleged. On August 9, when he was transiting through Chennai on his way to Shanghai for performing a live surgery, the Bureau of Immigration detained him at the airport on the basis of a Look Out Circular issued by the Home Ministry.
The petitioner said, “Without prejudice to my rights, I fully cooperated with the authorities & submitted myself to extensive interrogation, sometimes for more than 12 hours at a stretch. After having been interrogated for a period of 46 hours in total at Chennai & Delhi & providing all documents sought for, I was told I could travel back to London on August 19... However, that very evening, I was informed that I have to appear for further questioning in New Delhi.
“Thereafter I was further questioned for a period of 12 hours & am now being asked to remain in India indefinitely despite the fact that the officials have exhaustively questioned me on every facet of my business & profession. Further, I have submitted over 6000 pages of documentary information including my entire email records & access to my mobile phones,” and sought the Court’s permission to travel in & out of India.
Source Link
Picture Source :
