On April 8, the Supreme Court of India raised pointed questions to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking the transfer of a predicate corruption case linked to the 2015 Nagrik Apurti Nigam (NAN) scam from Chhattisgarh.
Article 32 primarily empowers individuals to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. Hence, the ED's move to invoke this constitutional provision sparked a sharp reaction from the bench.
"In a lighter vein we are telling you, if you claim that ED has fundamental rights, you should be worried about fundamental rights of others also,"
Justice Abhay S. Oka told Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju during the hearing.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Seeks Detailed Reports from Centre and Bihar Government on Ganga River Encroachments
The bench comprising Justice Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan heard the matter and ultimately disposed of the petition after ASG Raju chose to withdraw it.
Justice Oka directly questioned the legal basis of the ED’s petition, asking,
"How can a writ petition be filed by the Directorate of Enforcement? Mr. Raju, what is the violation of your fundamental rights?"
In response, ASG Raju informed the bench that the ED was withdrawing the petition at this stage.
The Court, in its order, stated:
"Learned ASG seeks to withdraw the petition. Petition disposed of as withdrawn."
Read Also:- Supreme Court Announces Advocates-on-Record Exam Dates for June 2025
ASG Raju further requested the court to record that the ED was withdrawing the plea “at this stage” and “without any prejudice.” To this, Justice Oka again remarked in a lighter tone,
"If you claim that ED has fundamental rights, you should be worried about fundamental rights of others also."
Raju responded, "Yes, I am definitely worried. We are more worried about victims than crooks and fraudsters."
The writ petition was filed in connection with the corruption case against former Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer Anil Tuteja and others. The 2015 case involved alleged irregularities in the procurement and distribution of rice by the Chhattisgarh government’s Nagrik Apurti Nigam.
Read Also:- Supreme Court To Hear Petitions Against Waqf Amendment Act On April 16
In a separate but related development, the Supreme Court had earlier on December 6, 2024, pointed out “disturbing features” in the way the ED handled Tuteja’s arrest in a money laundering case linked to the alleged Chhattisgarh liquor scam. The Court observed that Tuteja was taken from the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) office, interrogated throughout the night, and formally shown as arrested only at 4 a.m.
The ED has made several serious allegations in the cases linked to Tuteja. According to the agency, senior Chhattisgarh government officials were deliberately trying to weaken the case. The ED also alleged that Tuteja had influenced witnesses to retract their statements and that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) had made efforts to stall the proceedings.
Furthermore, the ED claimed that Tuteja had connections with constitutional functionaries and received undue assistance in securing bail. The agency went on to allege that even a High Court judge and the then Advocate General were involved in helping him get relief.
The 2015 FIR, filed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau and the Economic Offences Wing, named Tuteja, Shiv Shankar Bhatt, and 26 others. The charges were under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, along with Sections 109 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
Read Also:- Presumption Under Section 16 HAMA Requires Signature of Both Parties to Adoption Deed: Bombay High Court
The case involved allegations that substandard rice was procured, causing massive financial losses. It was claimed that Tuteja received ₹1.51 crore and Shukla received ₹2.21 crore between May 2014 and February 2015.
In 2019, the ED registered an ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report) for a money laundering investigation arising from this case. After receiving summons in March 2020, both Tuteja and Shukla applied for anticipatory bail.
The Chhattisgarh High Court granted anticipatory bail, observing that there was no direct evidence against them, custodial interrogation wasn’t necessary, and both had cooperated with the investigation. The ED has challenged this decision, and its plea is still pending before the Supreme Court.
Case no. – W.P.(Crl.) No. 506/2021
Case Title – Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.
