Chhattisgarh liquor scam: Relief to Yash Tuteja, Supreme Court stays ED probe

On 17 July, the Supreme Court bench stayed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) probe in the alleged Rs. 2,000 crore Chhattisgarh liquor scam. The bench gave interim protection from arrest to all the officers including state IAS officer Anil Tuteja, his son Yash Tuteja, and the petitioners. While investigating the matter, Yash Tuteja was identified as a kingpin in the illegal supply of liquor in Chhattisgarh. Previously, the top Court directed not to take any coercive steps against Yash Tuteja. Following this, the bench ordered, “Apart from the order already passed of no coercive action, the concerned respondent authorities must hold their hands in all manner.” The matter was heard by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court including Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice SK Kaul. During the court proceedings, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal informed the bench regarding the details asked from the Government officers related to their properties even though there is no predicate offence and requested to extend the relief to 35 Government officers. To this, Justice Kaul said, “We have to hold their hands in all manner, what else do you want me to say.” He also contended that the ED was threatening the state excise department officials as well as their family members with arrest. The SC bench said, “Even a bonafide cause becomes suspect when you behave like this. Don’t create an atmosphere of fear.”

Moreover, Justice Kaul asked V. Raju, Additional Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of ED, “What will happen if there is no predicate offence… If you see the order issuing notice allegation is under Income Tax Act. So far as predicate offence is concerned cognizance has not been taken by the competent court.” ASG opined that if there is an FIR then a predicate offence can exist even though cognizance has not yet been taken by the competent court. He further added, in the present case, cognizance is not denied by the competent court but it has returned the complaint on the issue of jurisdiction. Justice Kaul asked “What should be done in the meanwhile. The court which you thought had jurisdiction to deal with it you moved it. The Court said that we are not taking cognizance for these reasons. You move to appellate court challenging the same. No favorable order has been passed yet. What scenario will prevail in the meanwhile?” ASG mentioned that under such circumstances, proceedings cannot be quashed. The bench recalled the order, “No coercive step in Yash Tuteja’s matter.”