Learn about the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the transfer of the Chhattisgarh liquor scam case following heated exchanges in court. Get insights into the roles of Justices Abhay Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan, and Senior Advocates Mahesh Jethmalani and Gopal Sankaranarayana

Key Developments in the Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam Case

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, recently allowed the State of Chhattisgarh to request a case transfer to another bench. This decision comes amidst a high-profile legal battle in the ongoing Chhattisgarh liquor scam case.

Background of the Case

In the matter of Anil Tuteja v. Union of India and connected cases, Anil Tuteja, along with former IAS officers Vidhu Gupta and Nitesh Purohit, sought to quash corruption charges against them. These charges stemmed from allegations under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Supreme Court, however, declined to entertain their arguments during Friday’s hearing.

Heated Exchange in Court

A contentious exchange unfolded during the proceedings. Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, representing the State of Chhattisgarh, objected to adjournments requested by the petitioners’ counsel. He also sought the vacation of a temporary injunction that protected the accused from arrest.

Justice Oka noted Jethmalani’s arguments and suggested he petition the Chief Justice to transfer the case to an appropriate bench. “If there are complaints about unresolved matters, you can request the Chief Justice to assign the case elsewhere,” Justice Oka remarked.

Petitioners’ Defense

Senior Advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Meenakshi Arora represented the petitioners. They countered Jethmalani’s claims, arguing that delays were primarily caused by the State’s requests for adjournments. Arora described the State’s objections as “unfair,” particularly when adjournments had been sought due to the State’s own scheduling challenges.

Court’s Observations

During the hearing, Justice Oka questioned the urgency of Jethmalani’s request to revoke the interim protection, emphasizing that the petitioners had cooperated with the investigation. “Why is custodial interrogation necessary when the quashing petitions are still pending?” he asked.

Jethmalani argued that custodial interrogation was vital for the investigation, asserting that the Court did not have the jurisdiction to decide on such matters. In response, Justice Oka proposed that the interlocutory applications (IAs) be heard on a non-miscellaneous day prior to the summer break.

Transfer Request Granted

Despite heated arguments, Justice Oka maintained that the judiciary could not be burdened with repeated complaints over adjournments. “If we start entertaining such objections in every case, it will hinder the Court’s ability to function effectively,” he said.

The bench ultimately decided to allow Jethmalani to petition the Chief Justice to transfer the matter to a different bench, ensuring a more streamlined process.

Conclusion

This latest development underscores the complexity of the Chhattisgarh liquor scam case, with both sides vigorously defending their positions. As the case moves forward, the judiciary’s emphasis on maintaining procedural efficiency will likely play a pivotal role in its resolution.