New Delhi, Aug 11 (UNI) The Supreme Court today refused to entertain a petition filed by former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister and Congress leader Bhupesh Baghel challenging the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) powers under Section 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to conduct further investigations based on supplementary complaints after the original complaint.
A Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi observed that there was “nothing wrong in the provision,” and any grievance regarding its misuse should be raised before the High Court.
“The devil is not in the law but in the abuse,” Justice Bagchi remarked, while Justice Kant reiterated, “If it is being abused, then go to the High Court.”
Baghel’s plea sought a reading down of Section 44 to permit further investigation only in exceptional cases, with prior permission of the jurisdictional court and compliance with safeguards.
The ED is probing alleged money laundering linked to a Rs 2,000 crore liquor syndicate racket in Chhattisgarh during Baghel’s tenure, claiming illegal commissions and unaccounted liquor sales through government shops.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Baghel, argued that the ED’s frequent filing of supplementary complaints delayed trials.
Justice Kant responded that, properly exercised, the power could also benefit the accused.
Justice Bagchi added that investigations are offence-centric, not accused-centric, and that “truth is the only pursuit” of investigators and judges.
The Bench noted that the ED is already required to obtain prior permission from the special PMLA court for further investigations, as affirmed in the Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary judgment.
If this safeguard were being ignored, the accused could approach the High Court.
Disposing of the plea, the court granted liberty to Baghel to seek relief before the High Court, making it clear that the challenge was to the alleged misuse, not the validity of Section 44 itself.
