The Supreme Court on Monday refused to directly entertain a plea by former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister and Congress leader Bhupesh Baghel, challenging provisions in criminal law that he said enable ‘piecemeal’ investigation into the alleged Chhattisgarh liquor scam case, in which he is among the accused [Bhupesh Kumar Baghel v. Union Of India And Ors].
A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said that the concerns raised by Baghel could be raised first before the High Court or the trial court.
A related petition was also filed by Bhupesh Baghel’s son, Chaitanya Baghel, who had been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the case on July 18. He, too, was asked to approach the High Court first.
“For what purpose the High Court and special courts are there? These abnormalities are arising only when there is some affluent person. If this will happen, then ordinary citizen and ordinary lawyer will have no space in this court (Supreme Court),” remarked the Bench today, before directing both father and son to ventilate their grievances before the concerned High Court first.
However, the Court agreed to hear a petition filed by Bhupesh Baghel challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 50 and 63 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
This plea pointed out that these provisions permit the ED to summon any person and compel answers and the production of documents under a threat of penalty. These provisions also mandate the signing of statements recorded by those summoned, under a threat of penalty.
“The result is a chilling effect on the exercise of the fundamental right to silence. The statutory obligation to sign one’s own potentially incriminating statement under threat of prosecution or arrest forces individuals to either forgo their constitutional rights or face penal sanction,” the plea said.
In this plea, Baghel also urged the Court to declare that ED officers do not have the power to conduct “further investigation” after the filing of a chargesheet, unless there are exceptional circumstances and only with prior permission from a jurisdictional court and upon compliance with proper safeguards. The plea added that the accused person’s right to default bail in the event of delay by the ED in completing the investigation must also be protected in such a scenario.
The Bench today agreed to list Baghel’s challenge to Sections 50 and 63 on August 6 when another pending case on the validity of the PMLA is scheduled to be heard.
Moreover, liberty was also given for Chaitanya Bhagel to file a petition on this issue before the Supreme Court, while allowing him to withdraw his petition.
The petitions before the Court are tied to allegations that a ₹2,000 crore liquor syndicate racket operated in Chhattisgarh during the Chief Ministership of Bhupesh Baghel.
The ED has claimed that this syndicate collected illegal commissions and sold unaccounted liquor through government liquor shops.
Notably, on April 8, 2024, the Supreme Court quashed a previous money laundering case registered by the ED in the same matter after finding that there was no predicate offence (an underlying criminal case based on which ED cases can be registered if it is suspected that money was laundered as part of such a crime).
A day later, the ED registered a fresh money laundering case based on a predicate case registered by the Chhattisgarh police in January 2024.
Chaitanya Baghel, son of Bhupesh Baghel, was also among those who were accused of involvement in the matter. He was arrested recently by the ED on July 18 on allegations that he was involved in siphoning off money through real estate and other channels.
In his plea, Bhupesh Baghel denounced the arrest and connected actions as being politically motivated.
Senior Advocates AM Singhvi, Kapil Sibal and Mukul Rohatgi appeared for Chaitanya Baghel and Bhupesh Baghel today.
Sibal argued that ‘anybody can be picked up anytime’ if investigation agencies, including the ED, are allowed to conduct piecemeal investigations and submit chargesheets indefinitely. He added that such an approach would also defeat the accused’s right to default bail or bail granted when there is a delay in completing the probe.
The Court noted that the issue had less to do with the validity of laws allowing the filing of supplementary chargesheets and more to do with the abuse of such laws.
“It’s not a vires question. It’s a question of abuse. We fully appreciate your concern. Powers being so plenary, there’s always a chance of abuse and hounding innocent individuals,” the Bench remarked.
It added that the law has provisions to guard against the misuse of such powers, and that aggrieved individuals can always approach courts on an individual basis if the investigation agencies are found deviating from the law.
“If there is any deviation, please challenge that on and individual basis before the High Court,” the Court said.
Sibal, however, pointed out that related issues concerning such powers of the ED is already pending consideration before the Court in the PMLA review case.
