The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a series of petitions — including several public interest litigations (PILs) and an appeal — that sought to transfer the investigation into the alleged ₹5,000-crore Public Distribution System (PDS) scam to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or a Special Investigation Team (SIT).
A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, while pronouncing a common order on October 10, held that there was no justification for transferring the case, as the trial arising out of the FIR registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) in 2015 had already reached an advanced stage. The court noted that evidence of more than 170 out of 224 prosecution witnesses had been recorded before the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, showing that the proceedings were well underway.
Observing that the trial was progressing effectively, the bench said there was “no good ground for transfer of investigation at this stage to the CBI,” and expressed hope that the trial court would conclude the proceedings expeditiously.
The petitions — WPPIL Nos. 42, 43, 44 of 2015, WPCR No. 193 of 2015, WPPIL No. 9 of 2016, WA No. 332 of 2016, and WPPIL No. 97 of 2021 — alleged massive irregularities in the procurement, storage, and distribution of food grains under the state’s PDS. The petitioners had demanded that the investigation be handed over to central agencies such as the CBI, Enforcement Directorate (ED), or a court-monitored SIT, citing the scale of the alleged scam.
While rejecting the requests, the High Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s order dated September 16, 2025, which set aside the anticipatory bail granted to senior IAS officers Anil Tuteja and Alok Shukla, key accused in the alleged scam. The apex court had directed both officers to cooperate with the Enforcement Directorate for four weeks to facilitate completion of the investigation and filing of the complaint.
Taking note of the Supreme Court’s directions and the ongoing trial, the division bench observed that the pending writ petitions and appeals had become “infructuous.” The bench also remarked that some petitioners, including advocate Sudiep Shrivastava, who appeared in person, failed to establish sufficient locus standi for filing the PILs.
With this order, the High Court has effectively reaffirmed that when a criminal trial has reached an advanced evidentiary stage, transferring the probe to another agency is unwarranted. The court’s decision now leaves the matter with the Special Judge to conclude the proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act at the earliest, in line with the judicial direction for speedy trial.