Chattisgarh NAN Scam-"High Court Judge Was In Touch With People Who Were Helping Accused": ED Tells Supreme Court

Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India, U.U. Lalit, Justices Ravindra Bhat and Ajay Rastogi, on Monday, heard the petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate, seeking a plea for transfer of investigation in the Nagrik Apurti Nigam (NAN) scam case, which relates to corruption in the Public Distribution System (PDS) in Chattisgarh.

The bench directed the parties to place material on which they wish to rely in sealed covers. The matter is now listed for 26th September 2022 at 3 pm. The court further directed the parties to submit their written submissions on the maintenance of the petitions.

At the outset, the Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, stated that the matter was of such a magnitude that the Supreme Court could exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution. He submitted that the matter entailed highly placed officers in connivance with authorities in constitutional posts taking advantage of their positions. Senior Advocate Dwivedi, as well as Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi and Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Respondents, highlighted that the said scam had occurred during the BJP government's rule in Chhattisgarh.

SG Mehta stated that it had emerged that senior functionaries of the government of Chattisgarh were actively involved in weakening the case of petitioners and that the accused had not only influenced the witnesses to withdraw their statements before the ED, but even the SIT had made seven attempts to stall the proceedings. He submitted that the ED's probe revealed that the accused was in touch with Constitutional functionaries and that there had been attempts to reduce the gravity of scheduled offences of other co-accused. He also alleged that the accused had received help from the present Chattisgarh government.

To this, Senior Advocate Rohatgi intervened and stated that–

"He has read this out to prejudice my case but he hasn't filed the material. Either you disclose the material or don't read this."

SG Mehta submitted that while he had no hesitation in placing the material on record, disclosing the said material would shake the faith of people in the system. He stated–

"If this comes out in public domain, it might shake the faith of people in the system. Sitting judge of the High Court was in touch with constitutional authorities who were helping the accused, do you want me to make it public?"

Accordingly, the SG requested the bench to take some time and look at the material 'at leisure' and then make its decision. 

Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, appearing for one of the accused stated that the said accused had been arrested in 2015 and that over 170 witnesses had already been examined in the matter, including the last witness who was the Investigation Officer. Here, the SG stated that none of the accused were in prison and they had been out on bail. 

The SG also stated that the matters were not being listed despite being mentioned in the registry. He stated that–

"I mentioned it six times. All I am saying is, my petition is pending, please don't conclude the trial."

Accordingly, CJI Lalit stated–

"Justice Rastogi was without a partner so he is sitting here with us. But since we have started hearing the matter, we will conclude it in the same combination. Whatever documents are in sealed cover, we haven't seen them but the SG has requested that we have a look at them so we will see them. In case we find that the material is to be made public, we'll allow that. A submission has been made that investigation be transferred and this court had issued notice in November 2021. Almost 10 months have gone by...Before the trial concludes, we must decide whether there is substance in the other side. List the matter next Monday at 3 o clock...As of now, we're saying that notice was issued in 2021, which means prima facie something was found against the petitioner. Thus, it's our duty to listen."

While pronouncing the order, the CJI stated–

"The SG has documents and material in sealed cover. Respondents submit that the practice of submitting documents in sealed cover has not been approved by a latest judgement of this court. The state submits that if the material submitted by petitoner is considered, state will also be desirous to place documents in sealed cover. Therefore, we wish for the counsels to place material on which state wishes to rely as well. Both sealed covers to be sent to residences of the judges presiding over the matter. We also want submissions on maintenance of petitions as well as the locus of petitioners. One of the respondents bought to our notice that all 170 witnesses who were sought to be examined by petitioner, have been examined including the last witness, the Investigation Officer. We've also been appraised that an application by ED for impleadment and seeking deferment of trial till disposal has been moved. The matter in that behalf shall be considered on 24th Sept 2022. After conclusion of evidence, the matter is now to be considered for recording statements of accused under Sec 313 of CrPC. For undertaking that exercise, no date has yet been fixed. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, appearing for Pradeep Srivastava, the intervenor, submits that the investigation leaves much to be desired. He submits that the quality of investigation is not up to the mark. He states that even after transfer to independent agency, course of investigation be monitored by this court by appointing an SIT or any functionary. We need not go into these questions yet. In the first instance, we shall consider maintainability. Let this matter be placed before same bench on Monday at 3 pm."

CASE TITLE: ED v State of Chattisgarh