Introduction:

In the ongoing legal proceedings surrounding the alleged ₹2,000 crore Chhattisgarh liquor scam, the Supreme Court of India has expressed significant concerns over the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) approach to prosecution. The case, titled Arvind Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement (SLP(Crl) No. 2715/2025), involves Arvind Singh, an accused who has been in custody for ten months. The apex court, particularly a bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, has scrutinised the ED’s allegations, emphasising the need for concrete evidence to support claims of illicit earnings.

Arguments Presented:

Defence’s Position:

Arvind Singh’s legal counsel argued that Singh has been detained for an extended period without substantial evidence linking him directly to the alleged proceeds of crime. The defence highlighted that the ED had filed one main and three supplementary complaints, yet failed to provide specific material connecting Singh to the purported illegal earnings of ₹40 crore. They emphasised the voluminous nature of the case, involving over 25,000 pages of documents and statements from more than 150 witnesses, suggesting that the sheer volume should not justify prolonged custody without clear evidence.

Prosecution’s Stance:

Represented by Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, the ED contended that Singh played a central role in a parallel liquor business. Raju asserted that Singh was closely associated with co-accused Anwar Dhebar and that their WhatsApp communications discussed aspects of the liquor policy, supplier market shares, and the supply of duplicate holograms used to sell counterfeit liquor through government outlets. The ED claimed that Singh, along with another individual, Vikas Agarwal (currently absconding), jointly earned ₹40 crore through these illicit activities. Raju also mentioned transactions between Welcome Distilleries and Anurag Traders, suggesting that Singh had connections to these entities, which were allegedly involved in inflating bottle prices and siphoning off funds.

Court’s Observations and Judgment:

The Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with the ED’s inability to provide specific evidence linking Singh to the alleged ₹40 crore earnings. Justice Oka remarked on a recurring pattern in the ED’s complaints, stating, “We have seen umpteen number of complaints of ED. This is the pattern – just make allegations without any reference to anything.” The bench questioned the ED’s failure to name Vikas Agarwal as an accused despite allegations of joint earnings and the issuance of a Look Out Circular against him.

Justice Oka further pressed the ED to demonstrate Singh’s direct involvement with Anurag Traders or any related companies, inquiring whether Singh held any official position such as director, majority shareholder, or managing director. The ED’s response lacked concrete details, leading the Court to emphasise the necessity for specific allegations and evidence. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on the upcoming Friday, with the Court expecting the ED to present more substantial material to support its claims.