SC permits liquor scam accused to withdraw pleas against PMLA

The Supreme Court on Tuesday permitted six people being investigated in the Chhattisgarh liquor to withdraw their challenge to crucial provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and prevented them from again approaching the court on this issue except for seeking bail and protection from arrest . The withdrawal was prompted by a statement by the court on Monday that it was not inclined to hear challenges to PMLA.

A vacation bench of justices Bela M Trivedi and Prashant Kumar Mishra, while permitting the seven petitions to be withdrawn, said that filing of such petitions where constitutional validity of PMLA provisions are being challenged has become a trend.

As most of these petitions also sought protection from arrest from the top court, the bench observed: “This has become an alternate means to bypass approaching the high courts under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for anticipatory bail.”

On Monday, the court indicated that it was not inclined to entertain such petitions because a Supreme Court judgment by a three-judge bench in the Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary case on July 27 last year upheld all contentious provisions of PMLA. The judgment was binding on courts and there was no reason for such petitions to be filed reopening the validity of the PMLA provisions, specifically Section 50 (power to issue summons and seek attendance) and Section 63 (punishment for giving false information), which already stood decided, it said.

Appearing for two of the petitioners, Akhtar Dhebar and Chhattisgarh excise commissioner Niranjan Das, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi informed the court that he had instructions from his clients to withdraw the plea. The same request was made by senior advocate Siddharth Aggarwal appearing for two other accused, Achaljeet Singh Bhatia and Pinki Singh.

The court permitted them to withdraw the petitions while granting them the liberty to apply for bail or seek orders for quashing of the enforcement case information report (ECIR). Two other accused, Abhishek Singh and Laxminarayan Aggarwal, were also allowed to withdraw their petitions.

The petitions piggybacked on an order passed by the top court on March 28, where notice was issued on a petition filed by Congress leader of opposition from Madhya Pradesh, Govind Singh. The petition challenged the validity of sections 50 and 63 of PMLA as being violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which protects a citizen from being compelled to be a witness against himself, and Article 21 that deals with an individual’s right to life and liberty. The two provisions of PMLA required a person to speak truth on being summoned by the Enforcement Directorate and the testimony was admissible as evidence during trial.

The top court is also hearing a review petition against the July 27 verdict filed by member of Parliament Karti P Chidambaram, who is also an accused under PMLA, where a notice has been issued in August last year.

Solicitor general Tushar Mehta and additional solicitor general SV Raju who appeared for the Enforcement Directorate ( ED), informed the court that on May 16, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, while directing the ED probe to continue against Tamil Nadu minister V Senthil Balaji, rejected the argument to reopen the July 27 verdict and held that merely because a review petition has been entertained against the verdict, the same will still be binding on the courts.

ED began its probe into allegations of selective grant of liquor licenses in Chhattisgarh on a commission that surfaced out of a 2022 income-tax department charge sheet filed against Indian Administrative Service officer Anil Tuteja and others before a Delhi court.

ED filed an affidavit last week in the Supreme Court detailing the status of probe against the accused. Unearthing corruption in the liquor scam, ED claimed that illegal profit of ₹2,000 crore was earned by a syndicate involving politicians, bureaucrats and private individuals during 2019-23. This money came through bribes collected from distillers and sale of unaccounted country liquor by state-run liquor vends, the federal agency said.