E-Paper
‘Sad state of affairs’: SC calls out ED over liquor scam probe
The bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the bail plea of Arun Pati Tripathi, a former Chhattisgarh excise official accused of being a kingpin in the ₹2,000 crore alleged liquor scam.
The Supreme Court on Friday criticised the Enforcement Directorate (ED) after its law officer raised concerns about an affidavit filed in a crucial bail matter related to the Chhattisgarh liquor scam, calling the situation within the agency a “sad state of affairs.”
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju initially claimed something was “hanky panky” within the department when he discovered an affidavit had been filed without his vetting. However, he later agreed to proceed with the same document after the court refused to allow the agency to “disown” its affidavit.
The bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the bail plea of Arun Pati Tripathi, a former Chhattisgarh excise official accused of being a kingpin in the ₹2,000 crore alleged liquor scam. Tripathi allegedly helped a syndicate of businessmen and bureaucrats run a parallel excise industry by collecting bribes from liquor retailers and manipulating policies.
The court drama unfolded when ASG Raju sought an adjournment, stating he had asked the ED director to order a departmental inquiry and summon the officer responsible for filing the affidavit. “There is something fishy in the filing of the affidavit which I found out yesterday. It was filed without being vetted by the investigating agency and without referring the full facts to the agency,” Raju told the court.
The situation took a turn when Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared post-lunch and ASG Raju softened his stance, saying, “Some miscommunication has happened. The AoR (Advocate on Record) is not to be blamed. I am sorry. I will not be filing a fresh affidavit. I will proceed with what is already filed.”
The bail matter itself couldn’t be heard substantially and was posted for February 5. Tripathi’s counsel, senior advocate Meenakshi Arora, informed the court that her client has been in custody for 18 months, including time served in the predicate offence. The bench clarified that while dealing with an ED case, it cannot include custody undergone in the predicate offence.
According to the ED’s affidavit, Tripathi, who served as chairman of the Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited and special secretary in the state excise department, played a key role in facilitating the cartel’s operations. The agency alleged he “became an expert in milking the excise system” and admitted to wrongdoings in his statement under Section 50 of PMLA.
The ED claimed Tripathi accepted a ₹90 lakh bribe for awarding a hologram tender to Prizm Holography Ltd and coerced its owners to award software work to his wife’s firm. The agency also alleged he transferred “large amounts of cash” to the Netherlands and UAE to acquire benami foreign assets.
Other accused in the ED probe include former IAS officer Anil Tuteja and businessman Anwar Dhebar. The trial involves 70 witnesses and documentation running to 18,000 pages.
