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.
NEW DELHI: Today, 8th April: the Supreme Court of India criticised the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
The ED had approached the apex court to transfer the Nagarik Apurti Nigam (NAM) scam case from Chhattisgarh to New Delhi, claiming irregularities and political interference in the state investigation.
However, the Supreme Court questioned the maintainability of such a writ, stating that Article 32 is meant to protect the fundamental rights of citizens and is usually filed against government agencies, not by them.
The Court, in a light-hearted yet sharp remark, said: “If ED has fundamental rights, it should think about fundamental rights of people too.”
After facing questions from the bench, the ED chose to withdraw the petition. The Court then disposed of the matter as withdrawn, but not without reminding the ED of its role and responsibilities.
What is the NAM Scam?
The case relates to alleged corruption in rice procurement and distribution by the Nagarik Apurti Nigam (NAM), a state-run public distribution agency. The alleged scam dates back to 2015 and involves several individuals, including former IAS officer Anil Tuteja, who has been accused of large-scale irregularities.
The petition pointed out that many accused were granted anticipatory bail and described Tuteja as someone “very close to then Chief Minister”.
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.
In July last year, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) filed a chargesheet in the alleged Chhattisgarh liquor scam, claiming that corruption worth Rs.2,161 crore had taken place since 2019. The ED alleged that this amount, which should have gone to the state’s treasury, was instead siphoned off through illegal means. According to the agency, a liquor syndicate led by Anwar Dhebar and Anil Tuteja collected money unlawfully from the sale of every bottle of alcohol in the state.
On April 10, the ED registered a fresh money laundering case in connection with the same liquor scam. This comes after the Supreme Court recently quashed the agency’s earlier FIR, which was based on a complaint by the Income Tax Department. The new case now gives the ED a legal route to re-investigate the allegations.
Today’s Hearing
At the beginning of the hearing, a request was made on behalf of senior advocate Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, who could not appear due to personal reasons. His side requested that the matter be postponed.
ALSO READ: [Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam] Apex Court Grants Interim Protection To Ex-IAS Anil Tuteja
The court was informed:
“Mr. Jethmalani is dealing with a personal issue, so we request the matter be listed next week.”
However, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, appearing for the Enforcement Directorate (ED), brought the Court’s attention to a new affidavit submitted by Mr. Tuteja.
He stated:
“An additional affidavit from Mr. Tuteja was filed only yesterday.”
Despite this, the Court decided to go ahead with the hearing and said:
“So the first matter can proceed.”
ASG Raju, however, objected again, highlighting the late filing of an affidavit related to WhatsApp chats, and said:
“But the affidavit about the WhatsApp chat was filed only yesterday.”
Responding to the arguments, the Court questioned the relevance of the petition and asked “Where is the violation of your fundamental rights?”
Following this pointed query, ASG Raju informed the Court that he wished to withdraw the petition:
“I would like to withdraw the petition.”
The Court allowed the withdrawal and recorded in the order:
“In Writ Petition 12.1, Mr. Raju seeks to withdraw.”
In a lighter tone, the bench remarked on the ED’s position in the matter, stating:
“If the ED had fundamental rights, it should also consider the fundamental rights of citizens.”
ASG Raju continued to rely on the affidavit submitted and told the bench:
“I’m relying on the affidavit filed in Writ 12.1.”
The Court then formally disposed of the writ petition and ordered it to be taken up with an earlier special leave petition (SLP) “Since the ASG is relying on the affidavit, the writ petition is disposed of and will be placed alongside SLP 6323/20.”
Meanwhile, senior advocate Meenakshi Arora, appearing in a separate case connected to liquor allegations, pointed out that the tagging of her client’s case with another was incorrect.
She stated “This liquor case is different from the other matter, there’s no overlap. They should not be tagged together.”
The Court acknowledged the concern regarding the tagging of cases and issued the following clarification in its order “Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in SLP 1765/24 points out that the 07.03.2025 order wrongly tagged this matter with SLP 6324/20. If needed, they can be heard separately. The Court’s time shouldn’t be wasted on minor tagging issues.”
Finally, the bench confirmed that a date would be fixed for further proceedings:
“We’ll fix a date.”
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).
