The Supreme Court on Wednesday criticised Leena Paulose, wife of alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekar, for moving the apex court seeking an early hearing of her bail plea, which is already pending before the Delhi High Court in the ₹200-crore extortion case.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra expressed displeasure over the growing trend of litigants bypassing high courts to approach the Supreme Court for expeditious listings.
“It is not acceptable. Just because of proximity of the Supreme Court, everyone comes here and then seeks adjournment,” the bench observed.
Paulose’s counsel argued that although the bail application has been listed almost daily before the Delhi High Court, it is not being taken up for hearing. He requested the Supreme Court to adjourn the plea, pointing out that the matter was scheduled for hearing before the high court on Wednesday. Accepting the submission, the bench adjourned the case accordingly.
The extortion case involves allegations that Sukesh Chandrashekar defrauded the wives of former Ranbaxy promoters Shivinder Singh and Malvinder Singh of ₹200 crore. The Delhi Police has invoked provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) in the matter.
Paulose and Chandrashekar are also facing prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), with the Enforcement Directorate investigating related money laundering transactions.
Investigators have alleged that the duo used hawala networks and shell companies to launder and park illicit funds, creating a complex web of financial transactions across jurisdictions.
The case has become one of the most high-profile financial crime investigations in recent years, attracting multiple parallel probes and raising questions over systemic vulnerabilities in preventing organised financial fraud.
The Supreme Court’s sharp remarks highlight its concern over litigants routinely turning to the apex court for reliefs that should ordinarily be addressed at the high court level, a trend seen as burdening the top court’s docket unnecessarily.
