The Supreme Court on Friday witnessed a duel between a bench headed by Justice Abhay S. Oka and additional solicitor-general S.V. Raju after the law officer sought to withdraw an affidavit filed by the Enforcement Directorate in a bail matter.
Raju said there was “something fishy” and “hanky panky” and that the affidavit had been filed “in hot haste” without being vetted by the department.
The bench, which included Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, declined Raju’s request and said it would hear the matter on February 5. However, it is not known what the contents of the ED’s affidavit are. Raju was opposing the bail plea of an accused, Arun Pati Tripathi from Chhattisgarh, relating to alleged money-laundering offences.
“This affidavit was filed in hot haste without being vetted by me. I smell something fishy. I have ordered a departmental inquiry in this case. It has not been vetted. There is something wrong on the ED side. I have asked the director to start an inquiry,” Raju told the bench when the bail matter came up for hearing.
He told the bench: “There is something hanky panky as far as the department is concerned. Without consultation, a half-baked affidavit in counter has been filed….”
Senior advocate Meenakshi Arora, appearing for the accused, submitted that the plea was being made to seek adjournment of the case and her client has been in jail for several months.
Justice Oka told Raju that since the affidavit had been filed through an advocate-on-record (AoR), he alone has to be held responsible for any such lapses.
AoRs are the designated advocates authorised to file a petition or application under their attestation.
The bench passed over the matter to enable the AoR to appear before it. When Raju appeared with the AoR, the senior law officer said it was not the AoR’s fault. Instead, Raju said department officers had made some mistakes.
Raju added that he was not pressing to file an additional affidavit and would rather stick to the present one filed by the ED.
“We will not allow it to be changed,” the bench firmly told the senior law officer.
The bench, however, disagreed with Arora’s submission that her client was behind bars for 18 months. “It’s wrong. How are you behind bars for 18 months? It is from August 8, 2024. In October 2024 cognisance was taken. No charges framed,” the bench told Arora.