In an unusual turn of events in the Supreme Court, a law officer criticised the Enforcement Directorate for filing a "half-baked" reply in a bail matter and later termed it a miscommunication while urging the court to proceed with the hearing.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing an appeal of Arun Pati Tripathi, an Indian Telecom Services officer, challenging the October 25, 2024 order of the Chhattisgarh high court denying him bail in connection with the high-profile Chhattisgarh liquor scam.
Additional solicitor general SV Raju, appearing for the Enforcement Directorate, said, "There is something hanky-panky as far as my department is concerned. Without consultation, a half-baked affidavit has been filed even before we made an appearance."
Taking note of the shocking submission, the bench expressed dissatisfaction on the situation, calling it a "serious matter" questioning the accountability of ED and the agency's advocate-on-record.
"The counter must have been filed by your AoR," Justice Oka said to which Raju said the AoR could not be blamed for the oversight.
Subsequently, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the bench asked Raju, "You (ED) have filed a counter affidavit. Can you disown it now? What is going on?"
He responded, "I am not disowning. I am only saying it was filed without proper vetting so I will have to verify."
The bench termed it a "sad thing" and said it was like casting an aspersion on the AoR.
"I am not casting any aspersion. Some miscommunication has happened," said the law officer, insisting the AoR was not to be blamed.
Raju then requested the bench to proceed with the matter, but the court posted the hearing on February 5.
In the day earlier, the law officer said the affidavit was filed without an input from the investigating agency, and indicated possible procedural lapses within the ED.
This prompted senior advocate Meenakshi Arora, representing Tripathi, to suggest it might be a deliberate strategy to prolong the accused's detention.
The bench wondered how the affidavit could have been filed without proper instructions and asked, "AoR for ED files the affidavit, and now ED wants to say it was filed without instructions. How can we accept that?"
The ASG clarified while the affidavit originated from the ED, it was submitted without being vetted through proper channels.
He assured the court that he had asked the ED director to initiate a departmental inquiry into the matter.
"I personally told the director (ED) to institute an inquiry and ensure the officer responsible is present in court. This type of thing should not happen in the department," said Raju.
The case involved allegations of massive corruption, money laundering, and illegal profiteering by a criminal syndicate operating within the state's excise department.
Tripathi, who served on deputation as the special secretary and managing director of the Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited, was arrested on August 8, 2024, following an investigation by the ED.
The ED initiated the probe based on a predicate offense registered by the economic offences wing, Raipur, on January 17, 2024, under multiple sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The ED alleged a criminal syndicate comprising senior government officials, private individuals, and political executives manipulated the state's excise policies to extort illegal earnings from the liquor trade.
Investigations revealed the syndicate amassed over Rs 1,660 crore between 2019 and 2023, exploiting loopholes in the system to enrich themselves.
© 2025