New Delhi, Aug 4 (UNI) The Supreme Court today declined to directly hear former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel’s plea challenging what he described as a “piecemeal investigation” in the alleged Rs 2,000 crore liquor scam.
The Court said the matter must first be raised before the appropriate High Court or trial court.
A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi emphasised the need to follow procedural hierarchy, observing, “Why do we have High Courts and special courts? These issues only come up when affluent individuals are involved. If this becomes a trend, ordinary citizens and lawyers will lose access to this Court.”
The Court passed similar directions in a connected plea filed by Baghel’s son, Chaitanya Baghel, who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on July 18 in connection with the same case.
He too was advised to first move the High Court.
However, the Bench agreed to examine Bhupesh Baghel’s separate constitutional challenge to Sections 50 and 63 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which relate to the ED’s powers to summon individuals, record statements, and demand documents under threat of penalty.
Baghel argued that these provisions infringe on the fundamental right to silence and force individuals into self-incrimination.
Baghel’s petition further sought clarity on whether ED officers can continue investigations after filing a chargesheet without prior court approval.
He also urged the Court to ensure that the right to default bail is protected in such scenarios.
The Bench directed that this plea be listed on August 6, along with other pending petitions challenging the PMLA framework.
Meanwhile, liberty was granted to Chaitanya Baghel to file a fresh petition on similar grounds before the apex court. His existing petition was allowed to be withdrawn.
Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, AM Singhvi, and Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the petitioners.
Sibal warned that without judicial scrutiny, investigation agencies could indefinitely file supplementary chargesheets, undermining the accused’s right to default bail.
Responding to this, the Court observed that while Baghel’s concerns were valid, the issue pertained more to potential abuse of law rather than its unconstitutionality.
It stressed that individuals have the option to challenge such abuse in appropriate forums.
Notably, the Supreme Court had earlier, on April 8, quashed a previous ED case related to the same liquor scam for lack of a predicate offence.
The ED, however, registered a fresh case the very next day based on a new FIR filed by the Chhattisgarh Police in January 2024.
In his latest petition, Baghel termed the proceedings against him and his son as politically motivated and in violation of due process.
