If ED Claims To Have Fundamental Rights, It Should Worry About Fundamental Rights Of Others Too: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (April 8) questioned the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) for filing a writ petition seeking transfer of the corruption case (predicate offence) arising out of the 2015 Nagrik Apurti Nigam (NAN) scam out of Chhattisgarh.

Under Article 32, a writ petition can be filed before the Supreme Court by individuals for the enforcement of their fundamental rights.

Justice Oka said to Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, “In lighter vein we are telling you, if you claim that ED has fundamental rights, you should be worried about fundamental rights of others also.”

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan disposed of the petition after Raju sought to withdraw it.

During the hearing, Justice Oka asked, “How can writ petition be filed by the Directorate of Enforcement? Mr. Raju what is the violation of your fundamental rights?”

ASG Raju responded that the ED is withdrawing the petition at this stage.

The Court recorded in its order: “Learned ASG seeks to withdraw the petition. Petition disposed of as withdrawn.”

After Raju requested that court record that ED is withdrawing “at this stage” and “without any prejudice”, Justice Oka said in lighter vein, “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 by ED in connection with the case against former IAS officer Anil Tuteja and others, who are accused in a 2015 corruption case involving alleged irregularities in rice procurement and distribution by the Nagrik Apurti Nigam.

In another case against Tuteja arising out of the alleged Chhattisgarh liquor scam, the Supreme Court on December 6, 2024 highlighted “disturbing features” of his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case connection with the Chhattisgarh liquor scam, observing that Tuteja was taken by ED from the ACB office, interrogated throughput the night and then shown as arrested only at 4 am in the morning.

Previously, ED has alleged that senior functionaries of the Chhattisgarh government were actively weakening the case and Tuteja had not only influenced the witnesses to withdraw their statements before the ED, but even the SIT had made attempts to stall the proceedings.

ED has claimed that the accused was in touch with Constitutional functionaries and that there had been attempts to reduce the gravity of scheduled offences of other co-accused. ED also claimed that a High Court judge was in touch with people who were helping Tuteja and helped him secure bail. ED has alleged that the former Advocate General of the state helped Tuteja in securing bail.

In 2015, the Anti-Corruption Bureau/Economic Offences Wing registered an FIR against Shiv Shankar Bhatt and 26 others, including Tuteja, under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections 109 and 120B of the IPC.

Tuteja and others were allegedly involved in a conspiracy to procure substandard rice, leading to illegal monetary gains. It is alleged that Shukla and Tuteja received Rs. 2,21,94,000 and Rs. 1,51,43,000 respectively between May 2014 and February 2015.

In 2019, ED registered ECIR for a money laundering case arising out of the corruption case. Tuteja and Shukla filed anticipatory bail applications after receiving summons from the ED in March 2020.

The Chhattisgarh High Court granted them anticipatory bail in the money laundering case after noting that there was no direct evidence against them, custodial interrogation was not required, and they had cooperated with the probe. ED's plea against this order is also 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.