The Supreme Court witnessed a sharp exchange after the Enforcement Directorate sought an adjournment in the case involving Congress leader Chaitanya Baghel. Responding to the request, CJI Surya Kant remarked, “First, it’s ‘list it, list it’; then comes the adjournment,” noting that judges read case files overnight during partial working days.
The Supreme Court heard a candid exchange after the Enforcement Directorate (ED) sought an adjournment in the case involving Congress leader Chaitanya Baghel.
The matter was listed before a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana.
At the start of the hearing, the ED requested that the case be postponed. Senior Advocate N. Hariharan, appearing for Chaitanya Baghel, told the Court that he had chosen to remain available specifically for the matter.
Hariharan submitted,
“I could have gone. I was stuck for this matter,”
While responding to the plea for adjournment, CJI Surya Kant made a pointed remark about how the Court functions during partial working days.
The Chief Justice observed,
“That is the beauty of our partial working days. First, it’s ‘list it, list it’; then comes the adjournment. We read files overnight for these cases,”
The comment was made against the backdrop of repeated discussions in recent weeks regarding the Supreme Court’s partial working days.
The Bench has been highlighting the workload handled by judges even during periods often referred to as court vacations.
It is also noted that on June 15, the CJI had remarked,
“Before vacations, everyone says ‘list it during vacation’. Once it’s listed, nobody appears. And if we say anything, they complain that the Court is making comments.”
Earlier, in November last year, the Court had asked for the ED’s response on a plea filed by Chaitanya Baghel. The petition challenged Baghel’s arrest in a liquor scam case, which stemmed from allegations involving Bhupesh Baghel, former Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh, and his son.
The Supreme Court had directed the ED to file its counter within three weeks.
During that hearing, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Baghel, argued that the arrest made on the ground of alleged non-cooperation was improper because the ED had allegedly not summoned Chaitanya even once.
Chaitanya Baghel has also approached the Supreme Court with a petition challenging Sections 50 and 63 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), claiming violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
In August 2025, the Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition filed by Bhupesh Kumar Baghel alleging systematic misuse of investigative powers under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and Section 193(9) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Bhupesh Baghel and his son Chaitanya Baghel are both accused in the alleged liquor scam in Chhattisgarh.
Chaitanya Baghel was later arrested in the money laundering case. The ED alleges that he was involved in handling more than Rs 1,000 crore of illegal proceeds linked to the suspected liquor scam and that he used Rs 16.7 crore for developing his real estate project. Chaitanya Baghel has also challenged an October 17 order of the Chhattisgarh High Court that dismissed his challenge to his arrest.
The High Court had held that the ED’s further investigation without mandatory permission from the jurisdictional court amounted to only a procedural irregularity.
The petitions brought by the former Chief Minister and his son have questioned the powers of the CBI and ED to arrest and investigate accused persons and their jurisdiction in such cases. They argued that the provisions enabling further investigation without adequate procedural safeguards allow investigating agencies unfettered discretion, resulting in arbitrary and prolonged investigations that infringe fundamental rights to equality, personal liberty, and a fair trial under Articles 14, 20 and 21.
The petition also contended that the lack of mandatory judicial oversight and statutory timelines enables agencies to file incomplete and piecemeal charge sheets, thereby frustrating the indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC and Section 187(3) of the BNSS. It further challenged piecemeal or successive supplementary charge sheets, contending they undermine the right to statutory default bail.
It was also submitted before the Court that since 2015, Bhupesh Baghel has been named in 12 FIRs. The plea claimed that the filing of multiple charge sheets against specific individuals such as those seen in FIR No. 04/2024 (Chhattisgarh Liquor FIR), where charge sheets were reportedly filed between July 2024 and June 2025 covering only subsets of accused shows a strategy to prolong proceedings and bypass statutory protections.
The petition argued that investigations should relate to the alleged offence rather than being directed at particular individuals alone.
The Court was further told that the investigating agencies were filing incomplete charge sheets while citing ongoing further investigation, in an attempt to defeat the right to default bail, which is described as a fundamental right under Article 21.
Alleging political vendetta, the petition submitted,
“Recently, the CBI conducted search and seizure operations at his premises, heightening his apprehension of arbitrary detention. Moreover, the son of the Petitioner, on 18.07.2025, has been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate. The absence of effective mechanisms to regulate further investigations leaves accused persons vulnerable to harassment and indefinite detention, as agencies operate with unchecked discretion. This systemic failure not only prejudices the Petitioner but also undermines the rule of law, as agencies appear to act with bias rather than impartiality, eroding public confidence in the justice system.”