'Mystery' : Supreme Court Puzzled Over Anonymous Filings In Chhatisgarh NAN Scam Case; ED, Accused & State Deny Filing

While hearing the ED's plea for cancellation of bail to the accused in the Chhattisgarh NAN Scam, the Supreme Court expressed concern over certain 'confidential notes' filed anonymously in a sealed cover before the bench. 

The Court directed the Registrar(Judicial) to inspect, along with the Advocates from both sides.

The bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice  Ujjal Bhuuyan was hearing a plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenging the anticipatory bail granted by the Chhattisgarh High Court in 2020 to some accused, including Anil Tuteja former IAS officer.

The accused are charged with corruption for the alleged involvement in the illegal collection of money by Nagrik Apurti Nigam (NAN) officials for procuring substandard rice, resulting in substantial illegal earnings and systematic district-wise collections.

Justice Oka flagged that a bunch of documents in a sealed cover along with a  'Confidential Note' were received that contained various records.

"Just see the first page of documents- we don't know (who sent). Somebody has to resolve this mystery," Justice Oka said. 

When the bench asked the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S V Raju appearing for the ED whether these were filed by him, he said "This is definitely not filed by us". 

Sr Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for Tuteja also clarified that nothing as such has been filed on his part. 

The anonymously filed documents also contained a previous order dated September 19, 2022, which allowed the State of Chhatisgarh to place documents relating to the present case in a sealed cover and circulate it to the residential officers of the judges. The order stated :

"Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the State of Chhattisgarh in turn submits that if the material placed by the petitioner(s) is to be considered, the State would also be desirous of placing certain documents and material in a sealed cover.

We, therefore, give liberty to the learned counsel appearing for the State to place such documents and material, in a sealed cover, on which the State would like to place reliance. Both the sealed covers shall be circulated to the residential offices of the Hon'ble Judges constituting the Bench".

The bench suggested that it may be filed by the State of Chattisgarh, considering the above order. However, Sr Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for the State Government, denied. He pointed out that the confidential document contains no date, were not on the State's file, and could not be definitely attributed to being sent by the State of Chhattisgarh.

The bench allowed the supply of the records attached to the confidential note while directing the Registrar-Judicial to inspect the origin of the confidential note itself. The Advocates of Record(AORs) were also asked to assist as officers of the Court in inspecting the note. The following was observed: 

"We find that there is nothing confidential about the documents, and therefore copies thereof be supplied to the counsels for respondents. Now there is a confidential note - filed on record probably by the State of Chattisgarh in terms of liberty granted under an order dated 19 September 2022.

This confidential note may be sealed, other documents may not be sealed. We direct the Registrar Judicial to do an inspection of the confidential note along with the AORs on both sides. 

We make it clear that AORs on both sides will do an inspection of the notes as officers of the Court and not as counsels representing the parties. Which means that they are under the obligation not to disclose the contents of the note to anyone. After inspection of the note, we will take a decision about the supplied copies thereof." 

Rohatgi also pointed out that there is no prescribed procedure for inspecting documents on record (not marked as confidential). Taking the same into consideration, the bench directed the Registrar to furnish whether any such procedure exists at the next hearing. 

The matter will now be heard on February 28.

In an earlier hearing during September 2022, ED had told the Supreme Court that a High Court judge was in touch with the people who were helping the accused.

Case no. – Directorate of Enforcement v. Anil Tuteja and Ors.

Case Title – SLP(Crl.) No. 6323-6324/2020

Click Here To Read/Download Order