Former Chief Minister Chhattisgarh and Congress leader Bhupesh Baghel. , Photographic credit: Neither
On Monday (August 4, 2025), the Supreme Court agreed to explore the action of the former Chief Minister Chhattisgarh and the leader of the Bhupesh Baghel congress, claiming that the specific provisions on the prevention of the Money washing Act (PMLA) violate fundamental rights against self -doubt.
“Section 50 and 63 PMLA is unconstitutional, violating fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The framework under section 50 (2) and 50 (3) of the Act violates the fundamental rights against suicide guaranteed under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution. “Gender,” gender, “said gender,” she strokes, “she stroked,” “said gender,” “said gender,” “said gender,” she strokes, “said sex.” “It is caused by a sexual sexual point of view.
The bench headed by Judge Surya Kant agreed to indicate the action of Mr. Baghel’s demanding section 50 and 63, along with a dose of petitions that question the various provisions of the 2002 Act. These petitions are scheduled for hearing 6 August.
Separate petitions were rejected
However, the Supreme Court refused to entertain independent petitions filed by Mr. Baghel and his son Chaitanya Baghel, who was arrested by the Directorate of recovery (ED) under PMLA in the case of fraud in Chhattisgarh, which questioned “partial investigation”. They claimed that the probe became a source of harassment.
Baghels, represented by the leaders of the champions of chapels Siber and AM Singhvi together with the defense attorney of VIPin Nair, said that the prosecution in the case of liqueur systematically abused section 173 (8) of the criminal proceedings, 1973 and Section 193 (9) Bharatiya Nagarik Surraksha 2023.
“These provisions, which allow” further investigation “without adequate procedural guarantees, bring unlimited discretion of the investigation agency, allowing any and prolonged investigations that violate the fundamental rights to equality, personal freedom and just judicial proceedings under Articles 14, 20 and 21.”
Similarly, section 44 PMLA, which only deals with procedural aspects concerning knowledge and court proceedings with criminal offenses before a special court, to grant the essential powers of “further investigation”.
“Edges illegally and arbitrarily, although he has no explicit authority in PMLA to carry out” further investigations “and submit incomplete or partial complaints, resulting in any detainment, harassment and violation of the grave on fundamental rights,” Mr. Bhupesh Baghel argued.
In his petition Mr. Baghel pointed to 12 FIRs and more chargers against specific individuals given from July 2024 to June 2025 in the case of alcohol fraud.
“This suggests a deliberate strategy of prolonging the proceedings and circumvention of legal protection that violates the principle that the investigation concerns a crime, not the perpetrator,” he said.
The bench asked Baghels to approach the State High Court and increase their concerns about “a continuous, endless court dispute”. The court asked the High Court to speed up the case of Baghels.
Published – 4th August 2025 17:49
