The Supreme Court expressed concerns over the arrest of former IAS officer Anil Tuteja by the ED regarding the Chhattisgarh liquor scam, highlighting procedural integrity issues. The court allowed Tuteja to withdraw his petition for bail. Significant questions arose about the legality of the ED’s actions and the urgency surrounding the nighttime arrest.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday highlighted “disturbing features” in the arrest of former IAS officer Anil Tuteja by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the alleged Chhattisgarh liquor scam. A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih noted “glaring facts” surrounding Tuteja’s arrest, raising serious concerns about procedural integrity.
“The petitioner (Anil Tuteja) on April 20, 2024, at around 4.30 pm was sitting in the ACB office at Raipur. Firstly, he was served summons directing him to appear before ED at 12 am. Thereafter, another summon was served while he was in the office of ACB calling upon him to appear before ED at 5.30 pm. Thereafter, he was taken to the office of ED in a van brought by the ED and was interrogated throughout the night and arrested at 4 am. The facts are glaring,”
the bench observed.
The court permitted senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Tuteja, to withdraw the petition and approach the trial court for bail. The bench directed,
“The SLPs are disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to apply for bail, and if any such applications are made considering the peculiar facts of the case, the special court concerned will give necessary priority in disposal of the bail application.”
During the hearing, Singhvi informed the bench that the ED’s earlier money laundering case registered on April 8, 2024, had already been quashed. However, just three days later, the agency filed a fresh Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) based on the same facts.
“The agency couldn’t have new information in such a short time,” Singhvi argued. Justice Oka queried whether the ED could rely on material from the first quashed ECIR to justify the second.
The Additional Solicitor General, S.V. Raju, representing the ED, maintained that materials collected in the first investigation were validly incorporated into the second ECIR. However, Justice Oka noted that the first case was quashed due to the absence of a predicate offence, raising questions about the legality of subsequent actions.
On December 5, the bench expressed displeasure over the ED’s hasty actions, questioning the urgency of arresting Tuteja in the middle of the night.
“It is deplorable. How can you arrest a person in the middle of the night? What is this happening? Was it so urgent? You could have called him the next day. He was not some terrorist who would go in with bombs,”
the court said.
The alleged liquor scam, involving illegal profits worth Rs. 2,000 crore, is said to have operated from 2019 to 2023. The ED claims Tuteja was integral to a syndicate that illicitly profited through bribes from distillers and the unaccounted sale of liquor by state-run vends.
On April 8, the Supreme Court had quashed the original money laundering case against Tuteja, noting the absence of proceeds of crime and predicate offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
This case highlights the need for adherence to due process and raises questions about the urgency and propriety of ED’s actions in high-profile cases.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE