Today, On 4th August, Supreme Court rejected Bhupesh Baghel’s plea in the PMLA case, asking his son to approach the High Court. “This kind of approach is seen only with influential individuals. Where do ordinary citizens go?”
The Supreme Court on Monday heard arguments on various legal challenges related to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), particularly its provisions like Sections 50, 63, 44, and 49.
Senior Advocates Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Kapil Sibal, and Mukul Rohatgi appeared for different petitioners, raising strong concerns about the misuse of powers under the law and how it impacts the rights of individuals.
The bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi presided over the matter.
Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the petitioners and was told by the bench, led by Justice Surya Kant, that the nature of the petition was too mixed.
Also Read: ED Raids Ex-Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel’s Son, Others in Liquor Scam Case
Justice Kant said,
“If you’re simply challenging the provisions, file a writ for that. But here you’re also contesting the arrest you can’t bundle everything into one petition. Why should we examine the facts? That’s what High Courts are for. This kind of approach is seen only with influential individuals. Where do ordinary citizens go?”
He then added,
“You are free to raise this issue before the special court.”
When Singhvi argued that the law was being stretched beyond its meaning, saying,
“An explanation can’t be used to stretch the section beyond what it actually says,”
Justice Kant responded,
“That’s something you could raise in a quashing petition. Your argument isn’t just about the validity of the provision you are focusing more on how it should be interpreted.”
Singhvi then asked the Court,
“What’s the justification for making an arrest based on a later charge sheet?”
But the Court maintained that such arguments should be raised before the appropriate forum.
Singhvi continued to press his point, saying,
“The legal process has been misused. There’s no role of the magistrate at all!”
To this, the Court clarified,
“Even if the law is valid, specific actions taken under it can still be unlawful that’s a separate matter.”
Justice Kant also said,
“The facts are too closely linked. Withdraw this petition and file a fresh one focused solely on Sections 50 and 63 of the PMLA.”
Singhvi informed the Court that he had already filed a separate application on those sections.
He said,
“I have already filed an independent IA specifically on Sections 50 and 63. I will withdraw the writ and move the High Court for individual reliefs but would request that the High Court proceedings be fast tracked.”
Accordingly, the Court recorded its order,
“The petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition with two specific liberties first, to file a fresh writ petition before this Court challenging the constitutionality of Sections 50 and 63 of the Act, and second, to raise all other related issues before the jurisdictional High Court.”
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel, raised concerns regarding the Explanation to Section 44 of the PMLA.
He said,
“I’m challenging the Explanation to Section 44 of the PMLA. Look at what’s happening prosecution files a chargesheet naming 7 accused, then files another adding 8, then 9 all without magistrate’s permission, and cognizance is still taken. This allows anyone to be arrested at any time. My concern is with what the Explanation enables.”
Justice Surya Kant responded,
“It’s only an enabling provision.”
Justice Joymalya Bagchi added,
“What about Section 65 of the PMLA? The power to investigate comes from it not by giving police officers authority, but by empowering authorized officers. Chapter 12 of the CrPC allows further investigation.”
However, Sibal argued,
“But PMLA doesn’t provide that power. Even under CrPC, you can’t keep investigating new people like this.”
Justice Bagchi noted,
“It depends on the facts of each case.”
The Bench then asked,
“What distinction are you drawing that a non-police officer can’t investigate? That misses the point. The ED authorizes officers, and they have the power to conduct further investigation. This isn’t about vires, but potential misuse. We understand your concern such wide powers do risk being abused and targeting innocents.”
The Court also explained that the amended law now includes checks on this process.
The Bench said,
“The new law addresses this concern it now requires prior judicial sanction. Before trial begins, the investigating agency has authority. After the chargesheet is filed, further investigation needs court permission,”
Sibal still maintained his concern, saying,
“But they continue investigating after cognizance without seeking permission.”
The Court advised him,
“If that happens, challenge it individually before the High Court.”
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi also appeared during the hearing and raised a challenge to Section 49 of the PMLA.
The Court told him,
“Mr. Rohatgi, even for Section 49, please approach the High Court.”
Through this detailed hearing, the Supreme Court clarified that while broader constitutional questions could still be raised before it, any challenge to specific actions or factual disputes under PMLA must first be addressed by the respective High Courts.
Case Title: Bhupesh Kumar Baghel v. Union of India and Others, W.P. (Crl.) No. 301/2025.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
