'Is Magistrate Too Small For You To Go There?' : Supreme Court Dismisses Chhattisgarh Congress Leader's Plea Alleging ED Torture

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea filed by businessman and Congress leader Hemant Chandrakar alleging custodial torture by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) during interrogation in connection with a money laundering probe.

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi dismissed the plea, questioning why Chandrakar approached the High Court directly instead of filing a complaint before the jurisdictional Chief Judicial Magistrate.

“Go to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. If there is a delay, somebody can monitor, the High Courts are there. Article 227 is meant for that. Article 226 is also there. Please go to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, respect that court. Only problem is, these people are obsessed with their status symbol. They feel that Chief Judicial Magistrate is too small for them. That is what is happening, instead of recognizing the majesty of law”, Justice Kant said.

The case arises from an ECIR registered by the ED under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). Chandrakar, proprietor of M/s Srishti Organics, which manufactures fertilizers and pesticides, alleged that he and his family were threatened and abused during a raid conducted at his residence on September 3, 2025, and during subsequent interrogations.

He claimed that ED officials forced him to admit that his firm had obtained government supply contracts by paying commissions to former Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel and his associates.

Chandrakar filed a writ petition before the Chhattisgarh High Court seeking a judicial inquiry into the alleged custodial torture, registration of an FIR against ED officers, and permission to have his statement recorded under CCTV surveillance and in the presence of his counsel.

The High Court, however, dismissed the plea after the ED assured that all interrogation would be conducted lawfully and without coercion. Challenging this decision, Chandrakar approached the Supreme Court.

Senior Advocate R. Basant for Chandrakar argued that in cases of this nature, the High Court “cannot consider itself helpless”.

However, Justice Kant questioned Chandrakar for directly approaching the High Court instead of filing a complaint against before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. “Unfortunately, we are developing two different types of legal systems in this country, one for those who can have and afford and one for the poor people. And that is what is bothering me”, he said.

Basant replied, “This is not a question of poverty. The mighty ED which is pitted against me must make a difference.”

Justice Kant then advised the petitioner to pursue remedies before the Magistrate.

When Basant said that “ordinary course may not be sufficient” in this case, Justice Kant disagreed. He recalled that in earlier years when he was starting out, top criminal lawyers would move the Magistrate's court through short complaints alleging illegal arrest or custodial torture, leading to officers being summoned and even convicted. “It depends on the quality of the trial court lawyer and the patience of the person, and of course, trust in the system,” he remarked.

Basant sought interim protection so that Chandrakar could appear before the investigating officer with his lawyer present.  Additional Solicitor General SV Raju for the ED objected, saying that counsel is not permitted in PMLA matters.

Basant then alleged that due to CCTV cameras being installed in the ED office, Chandrakar was taken out at specific times, tortured elsewhere, and brought back to record statements. “This can be verified from the CCTV camera which is there. Why am I often taken out of that room where it's covered by the CCTV camera?…The torturer's counsel undertakes he will not be tortured. That's what it is. Please get the CCTV from the police station, not mine,” he submitted.

Justice Kant reiterated, “Therefore, please go and file a complaint against any SHO or some policeman.” The Court then dismissed the plea.

Case no. – SLP(Crl) No. 16653/2025

Case Title – Hemant Chandrakar v. Union of India