New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday pulled up the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking transfer of investigation in the Nagarik Apurti Nigam (NAM) scam case from Chhattisgarh to New Delhi.
The apex court reminded the ED that Article 32 is meant for the enforcement of fundamental rights, and such writs are ordinarily filed against state agencies not by them.
In a light-hearted yet pointed remark during the hearing, the bench observed, “If the ED has fundamental rights, it should think about the fundamental rights of people too.” The remark triggered laughter in the courtroom and set the tone for the rest of the proceedings.
Faced with questions over maintainability, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the ED, promptly withdrew the petition.
The Court allowed the withdrawal and disposed of the matter but not before reminding the ED to introspect on its role as a government agency.
The writ petition was filed in connection with a 2015 corruption case involving former IAS officer Anil Tuteja and others.
The case revolves around large-scale irregularities in rice procurement and distribution by the Nagrik Apurti Nigam (NAM), a Chhattisgarh government entity.
The ED had argued that the criminal justice process in Chhattisgarh was being undermined through political pressure, prosecutorial bias, and witness intimidation.
It cited WhatsApp chats and call records allegedly showing direct communication between Tuteja and members of the Special Investigation Team (SIT), alleging that sensitive prosecution material was being leaked to the accused in real-time.
According to the ED, the situation deteriorated further after a change in the state government in 2018, with several accused, including Tuteja, allegedly close to the then Chief Minister, receiving anticipatory bail, which the agency claimed was symptomatic of a compromised legal process.
However, the Supreme Court remained unconvinced by the ED’s unprecedented legal route.
The bench questioned how a central agency could invoke Article 32, typically used by citizens seeking redress for violations of fundamental rights and not expect judicial scrutiny.
Notably, this is not the first time the top court has taken a critical stance on the ED’s handling of the Tuteja case.
Earlier, it had expressed concern over how the former bureaucrat was summoned and subsequently arrested.
