The Supreme Court on Monday sharply criticised the growing trend of affluent individuals bypassing High Courts to directly seek relief in criminal matters, as it declined to entertain pleas filed by former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel and his son, Chaitanya Baghel, challenging Enforcement Directorate (ED) proceedings in money laundering cases.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi questioned why the father-son duo had not approached the Chhattisgarh High Court, observing that constitutional courts at the state level are fully competent to adjudicate such issues.
“This is the problem we are facing,” the bench remarked. “When an affluent person approaches the Supreme Court, we start changing our directions. If this keeps happening, ordinary persons and their lawyers will not have a space here.”
The pleas, filed separately by the Baghels, relate to multiple cases under investigation by central agencies, including the alleged Chhattisgarh liquor scam, coal scam, Mahadev betting app case, rice mill irregularities, and DMF fund misuse—all allegedly dating back to Bhupesh Baghel’s tenure as chief minister.
Represented by senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, the petitioners challenged coercive actions by the ED and the constitutional validity of Sections 50 and 63 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). These provisions empower ED officials to summon individuals and record evidence, and penalize false statements.
Sibal argued that the ED was violating the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling that upheld the agency’s arrest powers but required strict adherence to due process. He pointed to a pattern of arbitrary arrests based on supplementary charge sheets, where names of individuals not initially accused would suddenly appear.
“This cannot go on,” Sibal told the bench. “People are arrested even though they are not named in the FIR or earlier charge sheets.”
Singhvi added that Chaitanya Baghel had not been named in any initial charge sheet, yet his residence was raided and he was arrested after being named in a later supplementary charge sheet.
The court, however, noted that if procedural violations had occurred, they should be first challenged in the High Court. “There are instances where law can be valid but action can be invalid,” Justice Kant observed.
The court allowed the petitioners to approach the High Court for interim relief and said their constitutional challenge to the PMLA provisions could be raised afresh through new writ petitions. It also directed the High Court to consider their pleas expeditiously.
Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, representing the ED, said Bhupesh Baghel was not named in any FIR or charge sheet but had still moved the top court. When pressed by the bench to clarify whether Baghel would be arrested in the future, Raju declined, saying that would depend on the progress of the ongoing investigations.
Justice Bagchi responded sternly, “We cannot leave a citizen’s liberty at lurch. He has a right to challenge the provisions.”
