Will Seriously Examine Allegations About Influencing Judiciary: Supreme Court In Chhattisgarh 2015 NAN Scam Case

The Supreme Court on Friday (September 27) directed former IAS officer Anil Tuteja to respond to allegations of the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) that he manipulated the Chhattisgarh judiciary to obtain anticipatory bail.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice AG Masih was hearing ED's plea challenging the anticipatory bail granted to Tuteja, accused in the 2015 Nagrik Apurti Nigam (NAN) scam, which involved corruption in the Public Distribution System (PDS) in Chhattisgarh.

The ED has contended that Tuteja and his co-accused Alok Shukla misused the anticipatory bail. Further, they allegedly tampered with the judicial process and influenced a High Court judge to secure the bail.

“Mr. Raju, we want to first seriously examine the first part of your allegations about the allegations concerning the judicial system. We will first examine that and then we will go to the other material”, Justice Oka remarked.

During the hearing yesterday, Justice Oka asked Additional Solicitor General SV Raju whether there was any material evidence to show that Tuteja had misused his liberty under the anticipatory bail. Raju responded that Tuteja obtained the anticipatory bail by playing fraud on the court. He further said that the accused manipulated the judiciary to get anticipatory bail.

Raju maintained that evidence had already been submitted in a sealed cover. However, the bench could not locate the sealed cover in the papers. Raju offered to re-submit the sealed cover, stating it contained evidence demonstrating that the accused had used their influence to tamper with the judicial process.

The Court directed the registry to verify the existence of the sealed cover, and if not found, allowed the ED to submit fresh sealed documents.

In addition to the sealed cover, ASG Raju said he will rely on an additional affidavit filed by ED dated September 9, 2024, as well as affidavits filed by the State of Chhattisgarh dated August 1, 2024, and September 25, 2024. The State of Chhattisgarh has filed the affidavits in a writ petition by ED seeking transfer of the predicate offence out of Chhattisgarh.

Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani for the State of Chhattisgarh said that the affidavits contain details of chats, alleging that the accused subverted the judiciary and the former Advocate General of the state was involved in this. He submitted that the state had a significant role in exposing the alleged fraud.

However, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi for Tuteja opposed this, stating that State of Chhattisgarh is not a party in ED's plea against Tuteja's anticipatory bail, and thus ED cannot rely on those affidavits in this case.

The court allowed Tuteja to file a response affidavit to these documents within three weeks.

“We permit the first respondent to file affidavits dealing with the three affidavits refer to above. We grant time of three weeks to the first respondent to file affidavits dealing with these three affidavits”, the Court stated.

The Court scheduled the matter for November 8, 2024, and directed the Registry to ensure the availability of the sealed cover documents before that date.

The Supreme Court in July expressed concern over the ED's delay in concluding its investigation into the case. The scam involved allegations of corruption within Chhattisgarh's PDS, implicating Alok Shukla and Anil Tuteja, then Chairman and Managing Director of NAN, among others.

Accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, they were granted anticipatory bail by the Chhattisgarh High Court in 2020, prompting the ED to challenge the decision before the Supreme Court.

The ED has alleged that the accused, while serving as senior officials in the Chhattisgarh government, engaged in corrupt activities, receiving illegal payments as part of a scheme involving the procurement of substandard rice under the PDS. The agency claims that the accused profited from these activities and conspired to influence the judicial process to evade arrest.

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

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