The Supreme Court, while granting interim protection from coercive action to officials of the Chhattisgarh government in a liquor scam case, has observed that the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) could not be a law unto itself.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia made the observation on Monday, while hearing the petition filed by the officials, who were accused by the Uttar Pradesh Police of making duplicate holograms in connection with the Chhattisgarh liquor scam case.
Appearing for some of the bureaucrats on August 7, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi had contended during the last hearing that the UP Police FIR was registered on July 30, while the Supreme Court had restrained the ED from proceeding with investigation in relation to the Chhattisgarh liquor scam on July 18.
Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the national agency, had submitted that the agency was bound to inform the jurisdictional police about any offence which it detected during the course of its investigation.
The Apex Court had then asked the Counsel appearing for ED to get instructions as to when the information relating to the UP Police FIR was obtained, whether before the July 18 order or after.
ASG Raju sought some time to obtain instructions. The top court of the country granted time till August 21 to the ED and directed the Uttar Pradesh Police not to take any coercive steps till the next date of hearing. However, the Bench added that it was not pending the investigation.
As soon as the case was taken up on Monday, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, while reiterating the facts, contended that the UP Police filed the FIR against the petitioners after the stay was obtained.
ASG Raju agreed that the national agency got hold of the information before the order was passed.
The Apex Court then ordered that the interim order of August 7, 2023 will continue till the next date of hearing and listed the matter for hearing on September 26.
The petitioners included IAS officer Atul Tuteja and his son Yash Tuteja.
(Case title: Yash Tuteja and Anr vs Union of India and Ors)