Supreme Court questions ED over 'hasty' arrest of retired IAS officer in liquor scam

The Supreme Court expressed concern over the speed and manner in which retired IAS officer Anil Tuteja was summoned and arrested by the ED in connection with an alleged liquor scam in Chhattisgarh.

In Short

• Supreme Court questions ED over swift summons, arrest of Anil Tuteja
• Court seeks explanation on probe agency's procedure and timing
• Asks ED to file affidavit on the retired IAS officer's arrest details

The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the Enforcement Directorate (ED) regarding its handling of the arrest of retired IAS officer Anil Tuteja, who is accused in connection with an alleged liquor scam in Chhattisgarh. The court expressed concern over the speed and manner in which Tuteja was summoned and arrested.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court asked the ED to clarify the process it followed in summoning Tuteja, particularly why there was an apparent rush in serving the summons and taking him into custody.

The court was responding to Tuteja’s plea challenging the Chhattisgarh High Court's refusal to quash the corruption and money laundering charges against him.

The court noted that Tuteja was already being questioned by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) when the ED issued its summons. The first summons was served at noon, and another followed just a few hours later.

“Please explain to us this procedure. He is in the ACB office, ED issues summons at 12.00 pm and then 5.30 pm. What is this hurry?” the bench questioned.

The justices further asked why the ED insisted on summoning Tuteja at a specific time, despite knowing he was being interrogated by ACB officers. The court sought an explanation from the probe agency regarding why officers from the ACB escorted Tuteja to the ED’s office and whether he appeared voluntarily.

Tuteja’s counsel informed the court that his client was questioned by the ED throughout the night. Expressing disapproval, the court remarked, “What kind of practice is this? Full night the person is interrogated. This is unpardonable.”

The Supreme Court stressed the importance of following due process, reminding the ED of the constitutional rights enshrined in Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.

“They should remember there’s something called Article 21,” the bench observed.

The Supreme Court has directed the ED to file an additional affidavit detailing the manner in which the summons were served under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), and the circumstances leading to Tuteja’s arrest in the early hours of the morning.

The court will resume hearing the case on November 5.