The Bombay High Court expressed strong disapproval of the late-night interrogation tactics employed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), emphasizing the fundamental importance of the right to sleep and its connection to human rights. The court, comprising Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Manjusha Deshpande, made these observations while addressing a petition brought forth by a 64-year-old individual accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The petitioner, a resident of Gandhidham, Gujarat named Issrani, was arrested in August 2023 on charges related to money laundering. Through his legal representatives Vijay Aggarwal, Ayush Jindal, and Yash Wardhan Tiwari, Issrani sought to challenge the legality of his arrest before the Bombay HC. The advocates argued that Issrani's rights were violated during his interrogation, highlighting instances where his personal liberty was restricted, his mobile phone confiscated, and he was continuously monitored even during restroom breaks.
According to Aggarwal's submissions, Issrani was subjected to interrogation throughout the night despite being medically unfit and having cooperated in previous investigations. This extended questioning period, which lasted until the early hours of the morning, infringed upon Issrani's fundamental right to sleep, a component of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The court took note of the timeline, noting that Issrani's statement was recorded from 10:30 p.m. until around 3:30 a.m., after which he was arrested at 5:30 a.m. The bench criticised the practice of conducting interrogations during late hours, emphasizing that individuals summoned under the PMLA should have their statements recorded during reasonable, "earthly" hours. The court underscored the adverse effects of sleep deprivation on physical and mental well-being, highlighting its impact on cognitive function.
In response to these concerns, the court directed the ED to establish guidelines for conducting interrogations within reasonable hours and issued a stern reminder that consent does not justify the deprivation of an individual's right to sleep. The bench scheduled a follow-up hearing for compliance on September 9th.
