WhatsApp will shut down if forced to break encryption: Company tells Delhi HC
WhatsApp told the court that it has more than 400 million users in India and they use the app largely for its privacy features.
The Delhi High Court will on Friday hear a plea by Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenging a special court’s order allowing the presence of a lawyer during the interrogation of arrested Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain.
The central probe agency, through their counsel Zoheb Hossain, submitted the plea before the division bench presided over by Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi.
“Certain conditions have been laid down like presence of lawyer and others. This will vitiate the custody granted to us,” the lawyer argued during the course of the hearing.
After the submission, the high court slated the matter for hearing on June 3.
Advertisement
On May 31, a Special CBI Court Judge Geetanjali Goel sent Delhi Health Minister Satyendra Jain, who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in a money-laundering case, to the agency’s custody till June 9.
In its order, one of the conditions was allowing a counsel’s presence during the probe. “Considering the facts and circumstances, it is directed that during time of inquiry/interrogation from the accused one advocate of the accused shall be allowed to remain present at a safe distance where from he can see the accused but not hear him,” the order read.
The ED had attached the properties of Jain’s relatives’ worth Rs 4.81 crore in April this year. The ED initiated the money-laundering investigation on the basis of an FIR registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), against Jain and others under Section 109 of IPC — read with sections 13(2) and 13(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
“Immovable properties worth Rs 4.81 crore belonging to different firms owned by Swati Jain, Sushila Jain, and Indu Jain, the relatives of Jain were attached. Akinchan Developers Pvt Ltd, Indo Metal Impex Pvt Ltd, Paryas Infosolutions Pvt Ltd, Manglayatan Projects Pvt Ltd, JJ Ideal Estate Pvt. Ltd were the firms against which action was taken,” as per ED sources.
Advertisement
