In a high-stakes hearing on Friday, the Supreme Court sought the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) response to a plea filed by Chaitanya Baghel, son of former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel, challenging his arrest in the alleged ₹2,000-crore liquor scam. The case, which has already stirred political ripples in the state, saw a heated exchange between the defence and the investigating agency before a Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymala Bagchi.
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and N Hariharan appeared for Baghel, arguing that the arrest was “illegal and premature,” while Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju represented the ED.
Background
The liquor scam case pertains to alleged irregularities in the sale and distribution of liquor in Chhattisgarh between 2019 and 2022. According to the ED, a network of politicians, excise officials, and businessmen manipulated the liquor trade, allegedly siphoning off large sums through shell companies and benami properties.
Chaitanya Baghel is accused of laundering part of these “proceeds of crime” through real estate investments. His arrest followed months of questioning and financial scrutiny by the agency.
Earlier, the Chhattisgarh High Court had dismissed his plea challenging the arrest, ruling that while the ED had conducted additional investigation without prior court permission, it was a “procedural irregularity” and did not make the probe unlawful.
Baghel has now approached the Supreme Court not only to quash his arrest but also to challenge the constitutional validity of Sections 50 and 63 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which empower the ED to summon individuals and record statements.
Court's Observations
At the outset, Justice Joymala Bagchi questioned the duration of the investigation, asking the ED how long it planned to continue probing without concluding the process. “More than the grounds of arrest, it’s about interpretation of Section 190 of the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. How long can you keep investigating?” she remarked pointedly.
ASG Raju, appearing for the ED, responded that the agency had been granted three months by the court to complete its investigation.
Sibal, on the other hand, argued that the ED had been “weaponizing procedural delays” to keep his client behind bars. “They arrested me on grounds of non-cooperation, but I was never even summoned,” Sibal told the court. “You cannot arrest someone for non-cooperation when you haven’t given them an opportunity to cooperate.”
Justice Surya Kant, however, noted that “non-cooperation may not be the only ground for arrest,” adding that the ED would have to explain the full basis for its action.
Hariharan added that Baghel had earlier approached the High Court to challenge the “grounds of arrest” but received no relief. “The investigation doesn’t seem to end at all. The process itself has become a punishment,” he said.
The Bench listened patiently but cautioned that the matter required a balanced approach since serious financial allegations were involved.
Decision
After a brief deliberation, the Supreme Court directed the ED to file its counter affidavit within ten days. “You’ll have to respond,” Justice Kant told the agency, issuing a formal notice on both pleas - one challenging the arrest and another questioning the constitutional validity of the PMLA provisions.
The Court refrained from making any interim observations on the merits of the case but indicated that both matters could be heard together once the ED submits its response.
With that, the bench adjourned the hearing, setting the stage for another round of arguments in what is fast becoming one of the most closely watched money-laundering cases in recent months.
Case Title: Chaitanya Baghel v. Directorate of Enforcement
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justices Surya Kant and Joymala Bagchi
Date of Hearing: October 31, 2025 (Friday)