A heated exchange erupted between Justice Oka and Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani during the hearing of the Chhattisgarh liquor scam case. The SC Bench recused from hearing, stating, “This is not the way to behave.”
New Delhi: The Supreme Court witnessed a tense exchange between Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani and Justice Abhay S. Oka during a hearing concerning petitions seeking the dismissal of FIRs related to the Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam.
This confrontation led the bench to recuse itself from further involvement in the case, directing the State to request a reassignment from the Chief Justice.
The case involves state bureaucrats, including Anil Tuteja, who had been granted interim protection from arrest in connection with an Enforcement Directorate investigation into a multi-crore liquor scam in Chhattisgarh.
These individuals had appealed to the Supreme Court to quash the cases against them. The Court had previously maintained interim orders protecting them from arrest, citing their cooperation with the investigation in orders dated September 2, 2024, and February 17 and March 17, 2025.
Representing the state of Chhattisgarh, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani sought to have the interim order vacated. However, the bench, consisting of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, questioned the urgency of this request.
Justice Oka stated,
“The main matter is pending… why should we vacate interim order? He has attended… pursuant to the notice…”
Jethmalani responded,
“We need their custodial interrogation… This is not the province of the Court. I am sorry, this is not the province of the Court.”
Justice Oka, displeased with this response, inquired,
“Are we powerless to grant the relief?”
Jethmalani insisted,
“Yes, I say that in all seriousness.”
Justice Oka then proposed,
“At the end of the list, we will hear you and decide this point, whether we can grant the relief… Why do you want to waste the time of the Court when matter is fixed after vacation? You argue at that time… he is attending (accused are cooperating for questioning).”
He further added,
“We will give you time… You argue that this Court is powerless to grant the relief.”
Jethmalani then shifted his focus to the conduct of the petitioners, alleging,
“On two occasions they have not appeared. On two occasions that the quashing petition was listed…”
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing some of the petitioners, interjected,
“Can we clarify who he is talking about? Because there are three matters. Let him clarify who he is talking about.”
Jethmalani clarified,
“We have been appearing… We have been appearing throughout. I will tell you Lordship, as far as these quashing applications are concerned, they have been pending since September. They were fixed specifically because I moved for vacation of interim order. I moved it in November 2024. They were fixed specifically. Your Lordship then said we will hear the quashing…”
Justice Oka responded,
“We are telling you, if that is the grievance, we will permit you to move the Chief Justice for transfer of this petition. We have been hearing so many matters. If you are making a grievance that matters are not reaching…”
Jethmalani replied,
“I am not saying… No, no, it reached,” but then added, “Your Lordships may pass any order.”
Justice Oka then stated ,
“Mr. Jethmalani, this is not the way to behave.”
Jethmalani reiterated, “On two occasions, your Lordships fixed it. They did not appear.”
Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, also representing some of the petitioners, countered,
“My Lord, that is completely incorrect.”
Justice Oka then remarked,
“Mr. Jethmalani, matters which you appear… how many times we are granted adjournment?”
Jethmalani replied, “Never…”
Justice Oka clarified, “Not in this matter. Other matters, we are granted adjournments.”
Jethmalani added,
“My Lord, let me tell you, whenever I have taken an adjournment, I have taken it two days or one week in advance.”
Sankaranarayanan countered,
“Three times in this matter, Mr. Jethmalani has taken adjournments.”
Justice Oka then began dictating the order,
“Considering the submissions made by Mr. Jethmalani, we permit Mr. Jethmalani to move the Court of the Chief Justice for transfer of these matters to appropriate bench.”
Jethmalani objected,
“My Lord, that will further delay my proceedings. Yes. It is better Your Lordships fix the matter before the vacation.”
Justice Oka responded,
“But we are giving liberty, you go to a better bench.”
Jethmalani clarified, “My Lord, Your Lordships are misunderstanding what I said. I did not say anything about the bench. I pointed out the conduct of the parties.”
Justice Oka stated,
“You are saying that matters is not reaching and… Mr. Jethmalani, if we start adopting this approach- which Advocate has taken an adjournment, how many times, it will be impossible for us to function.”
Jethmalani said,
“These matters are vital. They do not appear when the bail applications are there… This is an important matter, I leave it at that.”
Sankaranarayanan pressed, “Let him mention the date…”, to which Jethmalani responded, “I will put it on record before this Court…”
Sankaranarayanan replied, “He does not have a date. Let him mention the date this took place. There has to be some responsibility. When you say that the Court entertained an adjournment plea…”
And added, “If you are attacking the Court…”
Jethmalani retorted, “Do not fish in troubled waters.”
Arora intervened,
My learned colleague has himself taken adjournments on dates when it was inconvenient to him. It is very, very unfair…”
Jethmalani then addressed the Court,
“I do not want to move another bench… Lordships have taken it that I am making an allegation against this bench. I say I have not.”
Justice Oka reiterated,
“We have said… We have permitted you to mention the matter before Chief Justice for assigning to another bench. We have said so in our order.”
Arora commented, “That is very unfortunate. This is a thing that my learned friend has been doing… It is a provocation, specific provocation.”
Justice Oka told Meenakshi that the matter is over, to stop addressing the Court.
Justice Oka said,
“We do not get provoked… Time is running out for me. I do not want to waste time on all these”,
However, Arora added,
“This is extremely unfortunate what has been done in this court.”
ASG SV Raju also appeared in the matter, representing the Enforcement Directorate. The Supreme Court had previously acknowledged the Petitioners’ cooperation with the investigation and declined to revoke their interim protection.
In its February 17 order, the Bench noted that the main matter was scheduled for a final hearing in March, stating,
“At this stage, we are not considering these applications,” while affirming that the petitioners shall “continue to cooperate with the investigation.”
A subsequent order dated March 17 clarified a factual error and confirmed that interim protection would remain in place, contingent upon continued cooperation.
Ultimately, the Bench recused itself from hearing the petitions and granted the parties the liberty to bring the matter before the Chief Justice for reassignment to a different bench.
Case Title: Anil Tuteja & Anr. v. Union of India (SLP(Crl) No.11790/2024)