Today(on 9th July),The Supreme Court reprimanded the Enforcement Directorate for its inaction in the money laundering case against former IAS officer Anil Tuteja linked to the Chhattisgarh liquor policy scam, noting no progress since his anticipatory bail in 2020.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(on 9th July), The Supreme Court issued a stern reprimand to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) over the stagnation in the money laundering investigation against former IAS officer Anil Tuteja, who is implicated in the Chhattisgarh liquor policy scam case.
A Bench comprised of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih expressed their displeasure at the ED’s lack of substantive action since Tuteja was granted anticipatory bail in August 2020. The Court highlighted that the ED had not filed the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) nor a complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) during this period.
“No ECIR was filed in 2019. Anticipatory bail was granted in August 2020. What is happening here? You (ED) haven’t even lodged a complaint under PMLA.”
– remarked the Court, reflecting their frustration over the agency’s inaction.
The session was part of the ED’s appeal against the anticipatory bail granted to Tuteja. Representing the ED, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) V. Raju emphasized the extensive volume of evidence already gathered, indicating that there were “nine volumes of depositions” and requested a fixed date for the hearing.
In contrast, the defense for Tuteja pointed out the lack of significant progress in the investigation over the past four years since the High Court had granted anticipatory bail. This contention led Justice Oka to instruct the ED to submit an affidavit outlining the evidence amassed against Tuteja.
ALSO READ: SC Slams UP Gov. for filing Appeal against Order to pay pension to Retd. Gov. Servants
ASG Raju faced scrutiny over the absence of certain information on record, prompting him to assure the Court that all relevant details would be presented during the hearing.
He emphasized-
“The accused have engaged in objectionable conduct and misused the anticipatory bail.”
Justice Oka expressed difficulty in understanding the judiciary’s required involvement in the case, reiterating the necessity for the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to file an affidavit. This sentiment underscored the complexity and the procedural requirements of the case.
Tuteja’s counsel proposed that the ED could present the information in a sealed cover to maintain confidentiality. However, he also reminded the court that this approach would contradict a Supreme Court judgment disapproving of such practices. He emphasized his client’s compliance with all ED summons since the Chhattisgarh High Court granted him anticipatory bail in 2020.
He questioned the ED’s prolonged investigation, asserting-
“If they cannot conclude the investigation in four years, what more can I do?”
ASG Raju, acknowledging the court’s concerns, requested additional time to present the required information, stating-
“Lordships are correct. I am not evading. Kindly grant me time, and I will submit all the necessary records.”
This plea for an extension illustrated the ongoing complexities and delays associated with the case.
ALSO READ:“Prima facie, this is illegal”: Supreme Court Slams UP Police
Accordingly, the Court granted the ED additional time, scheduling the matter for further hearing in August. This extension aims to ensure that all necessary information is meticulously gathered and presented, maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.