Case No. – SLP(Crl) No. 11790/2024
Case Title – Anil Tuteja v. Union of India & Connected Cases
On Friday, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan recused itself from hearing petitions filed by former IAS officer Anil Tuteja, Vidhu Gupta, and Nitesh Purohit, seeking the quashing of corruption cases registered against them in relation to the Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam.
The bench stepped away from the matter following a heated exchange with Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for the State of Chhattisgarh, who strongly opposed further adjournment and urged the Court to vacate the interim protection from arrest earlier granted to the petitioners.
The Court noted that petitioners had been cooperating with the investigation, and had accordingly granted interim relief in previous hearings. However, the State filed interlocutory applications (IAs) seeking withdrawal of this protection, which were listed for hearing on Friday.
During the hearing, Jethmalani emphasized the need for custodial interrogation, arguing that the Court should not interfere in investigative procedures. He stated, “We need their custodial interrogation…This is not the province of the Court.”
Justice Oka questioned the urgency of the State’s request, especially when the quashing petitions were still pending and petitioners were cooperating. “Are we powerless to grant the relief?” he asked. Jethmalani firmly responded, “Yes, I say that in all seriousness.”
Tensions escalated when Jethmalani criticized the repeated adjournments, suggesting that the petitioners’ counsel were responsible for delays. In response, Senior Advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Meenakshi Arora, representing the petitioners, refuted the claim, stating that it was, in fact, the State which had taken multiple adjournments.
Justice Oka then advised Jethmalani to raise his concerns before the Chief Justice of India and seek reassignment of the case to another bench, if he believed the bench was not adequately addressing the matter. The Court remarked:
“We are telling you, if that is the grievance, we will permit you to move the Chief Justice for transfer of this petition. We have been hearing so many matters…”
Although Jethmalani clarified that his frustration was directed at the petitioners and not the bench, the Court maintained its stance and recused from further hearing. Justice Oka cautioned that focusing on adjournments in this manner could hamper judicial functioning:
“Mr. Jethmalani, if we start adopting this approach — which advocate has taken an adjournment, how many times — it will be impossible for us to function.”
The matter now stands to be reassigned by the Chief Justice to an appropriate bench.
