The Supreme Court, Today (Jan 17) during a bail plea hearing of Arun Pati Tripathi in the Chhattisgarh liquor scam, raised serious concerns over procedural lapses by the ED. ASG SV Raju admitted “something is amiss,” highlighting an unauthorized affidavit filing, and initiated a departmental inquiry. Justice AS Oka termed it a “significant issue,” while Sr. Adv. Meenakshi Arora called the delays a “tactic to keep someone confined.”
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India today heard the bail plea of Arun Pati Tripathi, who has been accused in the Chhattisgarh liquor scam case.
A two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan presided over the hearing.
During the proceedings, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, representing the government, informed the court that
“something is amiss in my department. A half-baked counter affidavit was filed without consultation, even before we made an appearance.”
This statement suggested procedural lapses within the department.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Pernod Ricard Executive in Delhi Excise Policy Scam Case
Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, representing Arun Pati Tripathi, argued,
“This is a tactic to keep someone confined.”
She pointed to irregularities in the way the case was being handled, emphasizing the need for fairness.
ASG SV Raju expressed serious concerns regarding the affidavit filed in the case. He stated,
“The filing of the affidavit seems suspicious based on what I discovered yesterday. It was submitted without being reviewed by the investigative agency or cross-checking the facts with them.”
He further added that the process followed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) appeared questionable and not in line with standard protocols.
Justice AS Oka remarked on the procedural issues, noting,
“Your Advocate on record has filed the counter.”
This observation highlighted the responsibility of legal representatives in ensuring accuracy and accountability.
ASG SV Raju requested additional time to address the matter, stating,
“Please schedule it for Tuesday. I need to review the affidavit. I have personally instructed the Director to initiate a departmental inquiry and ensure the concerned officer is present in court today.”
He reiterated his commitment to getting to the root of the issue, saying,
“I have a feeling something is off, so I’ll look into it from my end. This shouldn’t be happening within the department. The AoR is not at fault; this came from the ED without going through the proper procedures.”
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Upholds AAP Leader Sanjay Singh’s Arrest in Liquor Policy Case
Justice AS Oka raised concerns about the ED’s actions, commenting,
“Advocate on Record for ED submits affidavit, and now ED claims it was filed without instructions. How can we accept this?”
ASG SV Raju clarified,
“No instructions received yet. This has come from the ED without proper verification. Something seems off with the ED, I must say.”
His statements indicated a deeper issue within the agency that required investigation.
Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora argued for transparency in the case, saying,
“A 51-page affidavit with 83 paragraphs and all the relevant documents. Let us know what’s inside the affidavit. I’ve been here for 15 months.”
Her statement reflected frustration over delays and a lack of clarity.
ASG SV Raju reiterated the need for an inquiry, stating,
“I requested the Director to initiate an inquiry. This approach isn’t acceptable.”
He emphasized the need for strict adherence to procedure and accountability within the department.
ALSO READ: [BREAKING] SC Reserves Order on AAP Leader Manish Sisodia’s Bail Pleas in CBI, ED Cases
Justice AS Oka concluded the hearing by stating,
“We are deferring this matter. Request the AoR to appear. We intend to hear from him and will consider it. This is a significant issue.”
This decision underscored the seriousness of the procedural lapses and the importance of resolving them transparently.
The hearing will continue, with further developments expected after the ASG and the concerned officials address the court on the issues raised.
CASE TITLE:
Arun Pati Tripathi vs Directorate of Enforcement: SLP(Crl) No. 16219/2024.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on ASG SV Raju
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
