Supreme Court Asks Ex-Chhattisgarh CM Bhupesh Baghel, Son To Approach High Court For Interim Reliefs In Liquor 'Scam' & Other Cases

The Supreme Court on Monday (August 4) asked former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel and his son Chaitanya Baghel to approach the Chhattisgarh High Court for interim reliefs in the Coal 'scam' cases, Liquor 'scam' cases, Mahadev betting app cases, Rice milling cases and DMF 'scam' cases lodged by the Enforcement Directorate, CBI and State Police.

Briefly put, Chaitanya Baghel (who was arrested 2 weeks ago) questioned the necessity of his arrest and sought interim bail in the ED case registered in relation to the Chhattisgarh Liquor 'scam'. He further prayed for a relief of no-coercive action in an EoW case and challenged Sections 50 and 63 of PMLA.

Bhupesh Baghel, on the other hand, sought protection from coercive actions in all 5 cases mentioned above. While one of his petitions sought reliefs in cases lodged by ED and challenged Sections 44, 50 and 63 of PMLA, the other petition sought reliefs in cases lodged by CBI and State Police, as well as reading down of Section 173(8) CrPC.

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi disposed of two petitions as withdrawn- Chaitanya Baghel's and Bhupesh Baghel's second petition (seeking reliefs in the CBI and State police cases). The Court gave the duo liberty to approach the High Court for individual reliefs and requested the High Court to provide an expeditious hearing.

At the same time, Chaitanya Baghel, represented by Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, was given liberty to file a separate writ petition before the Supreme Court challenging Sections 50 and 63 of PMLA. The bench refused to entertain the petition as it is, saying that the legal challenge was too intertwined with the facts. 

The third petition, filed by Bhupesh Baghel, was kept pending and adjourned to August 6, when the Court is slated to consider the batch of petitions challenging Vijay Madanlal Choudhary judgment (which upheld various PMLA provisions). This petition, insofar as it raises challenge to Sections 44 (dealing with further investigation), 50 and 63 of PMLA, was re-listed to see if it should be tagged with the pending batch of matters (which involve a challenge to Sections 50 and 63 PMLA).

During the hearing, Singhvi contended that Chaitanya Baghel was not named as an accused, nor issued summons, before he came to be arrested. Questioning the necessity of arrest, he further asserted that Chaitanya Baghel's premises were searched in March but the arrest was effected in July, while there was no new material.

Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Bhupesh Baghel in the third petition (challenging Section 44 PMLA), contended that the explanation to the Section was allowing ED to commit mischief by endlessly continuing investigation in a matter. Since there is no Magisterial supervision, the ED is able to name additional accused at any time by filing supplementary chargesheets, Sibal argued. This allows the ED to file "piecemeal chargesheets" to get over the default bail provisions, he contended, and to rope in additional accused at any point of time under the garb of "further investigations".

The bench however pointed out that there are judgments in cases such as Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali which mandate Magistrate's nod for further investigation under the corresponding provision in the CrPC [S.173(8)] and said that the principle would apply in PMLA as well. Sibal however countered saying that ED relies on the Explanation to Section 44 PMLA to argue that Magistrate's nod is not necessary. He further claimed that there is a judgment taking view contrary to Vinay Tyagi and emphasized that the issue needs to be settled.

In closing, the bench was not particularly convinced, as Justice Kant orally commented that Section 44 PMLA is an "enabling provision". In the same spirit, Justice Bagchi appreciated the concern about misuse of provisions and hounding of individuals in certain cases, due to the "plenary" powers conferred, but underlined that the issue raised did not warrant a "vires" challenge.

The bench further emphasized that under the new criminal procedure law (BNSS), there are additional safeguards in favor of the accused and if there are violations/deviations by the prosecuting agencies, appropriate remedies can be availed on case-to-case basis.

Insofar as the bench asked the parties to first avail remedies before the High Court, Sibal asserted that "piecemeal" chargesheets are being filed across the country and are a violation of Article 21 rights. When the senior counsel further stressed that constitutional challenge to the PMLA provisions is already pending before the Court, the bench adjourned the third petition till August 6. 

Notably, before the bench parted with the matter, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, for the respondents, questioned maintainability of Bhupesh Baghel's petition, saying he has not been summoned in any of the cases and there is no FIR/ECIR against him. In reply, Justice Bagchi asked the ASG to then make a statement that the ex-CM was not connected to the investigation. When no such statement was forthcoming, the judge commented, "Then you are not clear. We cannot leave a citizen's liberty to...he has a right to challenge". Justice Kant as well added that any citizen can raise a challenge to constitutional validity of provisions.

Background

The Chhattisgarh liquor 'scam' is alleged to have been given effect to between 2019 and 2022, when the state was ruled by Bhupesh Baghel-led Congress government. As per allegations, it involved approx. Rs. 2,161 crores as proceeds of crime.

The Enforcement Directorate probed the operation of a 'syndicate' of politicians, government officials and other private individuals, that collected illegal commissions and sold unaccounted liquor through government liquor shops. Based on a communication from ED, the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Chhattisgarh also registered an FIR.

In April 2024, the Supreme Court quashed the first money laundering case registered by ED, after finding that there was no predicate offence. The next day, ED registered a fresh money laundering case based on the predicate FIR registered by Chhattisgarh Police in January 2024.

Appearance: Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Mukul Rohatgi, Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, N Hariharan, Siddharth Dave, S Nagamuthu and Vivek Tankha, Advocates Mayank Jain, Madhur Jain, Arpit Goel and Harshwardhan Parghaniha (for petitioners); ASG SV Raju (for respondent-authorities)

Case Title:

(1) CHAITANYA BAGHEL Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(Crl.) No. 299/2025 | Read Order Here

(2) BHUPESH KUMAR BAGHEL Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(Crl.) No. 301/2025 | Read Order Here

(3) BHUPESH KUMAR BAGHEL Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(Crl.) No. 303/2025  | Read Order Here