SC agrees to hear plea by Bhupesh Baghel on ‘self-incrimination' provisions in PMLA

The Hindu

4 days ago

The Supreme Court on Monday (August 4, 2025) agreed to examine a plea by former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister and Congress leader Bhupesh Baghel claiming specific provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) were violating an accused person's fundamental rights against self-incrimination and to maintain silence under questioning by an investigating agency.
'Section 50 and 63 of the PMLA are unconstitutional, being violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The framework under Sections 50(2) and 50(3) of the Act infringes the fundamental rights against self incrimination guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The provisions permit the ED to summon any person, compel answers and production of documents under a threat of penalty,' the petition said.
A Bench headed by Justice Surya Kant agreed to list Mr. Baghel's plea challenging Section 50 and 63 along with a batch of petitions challenging various provisions of the 2002 Act. These petitions are scheduled to be heard on August 6.
Separate petitions rejected
But the top court refused to entertain separate petitions filed by Mr. Baghel and his son, Chaitanya Baghel, who was arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) under the PMLA in the Chhattisgarh liquor scam case on July 18, challenging the 'piecemeal investigations' being carried out by the ED. They contended that the probe has become a source of harassment.
The Baghels, represented by senior advocates Kapil Sibal and A.M. Singhvi along with advocate Vipin Nair, said the prosecution in the liquor case was systematically misusing Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 193(9) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
'These provisions, which permit 'further investigation' without adequate procedural safeguards, confer unfettered discretion on investigating agencies, enabling arbitrary and prolonged investigations that violate the fundamental rights to equality, personal liberty, and fair trial under Articles 14, 20, and 21,' the petitions submitted.
Similarly, Section 44 of the PMLA, which merely deals with the procedural aspects concerning the cognisance and trial of offences before the special court, cannot be used to confer the ED with substantive powers of 'further investigation'.
'The ED is illegally and arbitrarily exercising its power despite having no express authority under the PMLA to conduct 'further investigation' in several cases and filing incomplete or piecemeal prosecution complaints, resulting in arbitrary detention, harassment, and grave violation of fundamental rights,' Mr. Bhupesh Baghel argued.
In his petition, Mr. Baghel referred to 12 FIRs and multiple chargesheets against specific individuals filed between July 2024 and June 2025 in the liquor scam case.
'This indicates a deliberate strategy to prolong proceedings and circumvent statutory protections, violating the principle that investigations pertain to the offence, not the offender,' it submitted.
The Bench asked the Baghels to approach the State High Court and raise their apprehensions about the 'continuous, endless litigation' in the case. The court requested the High Court to hear the Baghels' case expeditiously.