The Supreme Court has directed former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel and his son, Chaitanya Baghel, to approach the High Court to challenge the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) chargesheet in money laundering cases. The court's decision came on Monday, August 4, 2025, after expressing concerns about the increasing trend of affluent individuals directly approaching the Supreme Court for relief in criminal matters, bypassing the High Courts.
Bhupesh Baghel and his son have been under investigation by the ED in connection with several alleged scams, including a Rs 2,161-crore liquor scam, the Mahadev betting app case, coal scam, rice mill irregularities, and DMF fund misuse. Baghel has alleged that the central agencies are filing incomplete chargesheets in a piecemeal manner to deny him bail. He sought protection from coercive action, including arrest, in the multiple FIRs filed against him.
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, questioned why the Baghels had not approached the Chhattisgarh High Court, emphasizing that constitutional courts at the state level are fully competent to adjudicate such issues. The court noted that if procedural violations had occurred, they should be challenged first in the High Court. "There are instances where law can be valid but action can be invalid," Justice Kant observed.
The court allowed the petitioners to approach the High Court for interim relief and said their constitutional challenge to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) provisions could be raised afresh through new writ petitions. It also directed the High Court to consider their pleas expeditiously.
Senior advocates A.M. Singhvi and Mukul Rohatgi, representing Baghel and his son, argued that the filing of multiple incomplete chargesheets by the ED was illegal, as it is mandatory for the agency to take permission from the magistrate to carry out further investigation. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, also appearing for Baghel, challenged the constitutional validity of PMLA sections 50 and 63, arguing that they infringe upon the fundamental rights against self-incrimination guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, representing the ED, stated that Baghel was not named in any FIR or chargesheet but had still moved the top court. When the bench pressed Raju to clarify whether Baghel would be arrested in the future, he declined to comment, stating that it would depend on the progress of the ongoing investigations. Justice Bagchi responded, “We cannot leave a citizen's liberty at lurch. He has a right to challenge the provisions".
Baghel has accused the Centre, Chhattisgarh government, CBI, and ED of malafidely and illegally filing chargesheets and prosecution complaints in a piecemeal manner and taking coercive actions, including arrest, against many individuals. He also questioned the jurisdiction of the central agencies to conduct investigations within Chhattisgarh without the state's consent.
The court granted Chaitanya Baghel the liberty to file a separate writ petition challenging Sections 50 and 63 of the PMLA. The third petition, filed by Bhupesh Baghel, was adjourned to August 6, when the court is scheduled to consider the batch of petitions challenging the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary judgment, which upheld various PMLA provisions.
