New Delhi: “The Enforcement Directorate cannot be a law unto itself,” said the Supreme Court while restraining the central probe agency and the Uttar Pradesh government from proceeding with a fresh case against an accused in an alleged liquor scam in Chhattisgarh.On August 21, the top court directed that the two petitioners – Anil Tuteja, an IAS officer, and his son Yash Tuteja – accused in the alleged Chhattisgarh liquor scam would be protected from arrest and any coercive action by the ED and UP Police.A two-judge bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia said that the interim protection granted to Tuteja and his son by the top court earlier this month would continue.The same bench had granted them protection on August 7 after they had argued that the ED had proceeded with its investigation in this case despite being restrained by the Supreme Court from doing so.The apex court had asked the ED on July 18 to “stay [its] hand in all manner” in the case after taking note of the petitioners’ contention that a certain prerequisite for the ED to be able to carry out an investigation hadn’t been met.This is the fact that no court in Chhattisgarh or anywhere else had taken cognisance of a ‘predicate’ or primary offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in the case.It is such an offence that enables the ED, a federal financial crimes agency, to carry out a separate probe.The ED’s investigation in the case so far has been on alleged offences under the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is not a predicate offence under the PMLA, legal news website LiveLaw reported.But after being asked by the Supreme Court to “stay its hand” on July 18, the ED wrote to the UP government ten days later regarding the alleged manufacture of fake holograms used in the liquor scam, the Hindustan Times reported.UP police then filed an FIR in this matter against three people, including Anil Tuteja, on July 30.A different accused in this FIR, who is a special secretary in the Chhattisgarh Excise Department, has been arrested by the ED, HT‘s report said.Amid arguments that the ED was trying to circumvent the Supreme Court’s order by writing to the UP police, the ED argued in the top court on August 7 that it was bound to inform police about any offence it detects in the course of its investigation, LiveLaw reported.Also Read: Tracking the ED Case by Case, Puzzling Questions Emerge in Its Handling of Opposition LeadersIt continued to say that Justices Kaul and Dhulia asked the ED whether it learned of the fake hologram developments before or after the July 18 order.“On our query as to when these aspects came to the notice of the ED, learned [additional solicitor general] seeks a short accommodation to obtain instructions … The Uttar Pradesh police may not take any coercive steps till the next date [August 21], though we are not impeding the investigation,” their order read.Additional solicitor general S.V. Raju said on August 21 in the Supreme Court that the ED had learned of the developments before the July 18 order.This prompted Justice Kaul to orally remark that the ED “cannot be a law unto itself”. The bench proceeded to extend the Tutejas’ interim protection.The case will be next heard on September 26.Anil Tuteja is an IAS officer in the Chhattisgarh government whom the ED has accused of being the “kingpin” in the state’s alleged liquor scam.According to the ED, a syndicate “comprising high-level state government officials, private persons and political executives of the state government” is involved in the scam, which involves a selective grant of licences to liquor manufacturers, HT reported.It is also alleged that the government took bribes from distillers in the state to allow them to form a cartel and have a fixed market share, The Tribune reported.Lawyers for the Chhattisgarh government have said that the ED was “running amok” in investigating the case by threatening the state’s excise department officials and their family members with arrest and trying to implicate the chief minister, Bhupesh Baghel, who is from the opposition Congress party.In response, the apex court told the agency in May not to “create an atmosphere of fear”, as “even a bonafide cause becomes suspect when you [the ED] behave like this”.