The Supreme Court on Wednesday criticized the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for detaining Arun Pati Tripathi, a former excise official from Chhattisgarh and an accused in the state’s liquor scam, without adhering to the necessary legal requirements. The criticism came after the Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that Tripathi’s continued custody was illegal due to a lack of prosecution sanction.
Justice Abhay S Oka, leading a bench alongside Justice Augustine George Masih, expressed concern over the prolonged custody of Tripathi, who has been held since August 8, 2024. “What kind of signal are you [ED] sending? A person is in custody since August 8, 2024? As of today, there is no order of a court taking cognizance of the complaint against him and still he is in custody?” Justice Oka remarked.
During the proceedings, it was revealed that although the Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) took cognizance of the charges against Tripathi on October 5, 2024, his continued detention became contentious after the High Court found that the order was passed without the necessary sanction. Tripathi, who served on deputation in the Chhattisgarh excise department from 2019 to 2022, had challenged the cognizance order for lacking sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
The Supreme Court was taken aback by the ED’s admission of being unaware of the High Court’s order, which questioned the basis of Tripathi’s detention. Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the ED, and ED officials present in the court confessed to not knowing about the order, a fact that the justices found hard to believe.
Senior advocate Meenakshi Arora, representing Tripathi, pointed out that the ED had acknowledged the High Court’s decision in an application to the Special PMLA Court on February 7, the same day the decision was made. This discrepancy led the Supreme Court to accuse the ED of suppressing facts from the court.
Justice Oka admonished the ED for its actions, stating, “We have some serious grievance. It took you five minutes to confirm if the order of cognisance is quashed. Your ED officials knew and they suppressed this fact from us. ED must come clean.”
The law officer argued that the non-grant of sanction was a technical fault and should not hinder the continuation of Tripathi’s custody, citing the gravity of the allegations against him involving corruption and money laundering linked to the state’s excise department.
However, the bench underscored that Tripathi had not yet been convicted and ordered his release on bail under strict conditions, including the surrender of his passport and a commitment to cooperate with the court proceedings.
