Money laundering case: SC declines to hear Jacqueline Fernandez’s plea

The Supreme Court on Monday, 22 September, refused to interfere with a Delhi High Court order that had dismissed actor Jacqueline Fernandez’s petition seeking to quash the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) against her in the Rs 200-crore money laundering case linked to alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar.

A bench of justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, while hearing the matter, told senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi — appearing for Fernandez — that it would not intervene at this stage of the proceedings. “We will not interfere at this stage,” the bench observed, effectively upholding the Delhi High Court’s earlier ruling.

Fernandez, represented by advocate Sumeer Sodhi, had approached the Supreme Court after the high court’s 3 July order dismissed her plea to quash the ECIR, which is treated as equivalent to a First Information Report (FIR) in money laundering cases registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has named the Bollywood actor as an accused in its investigation against Chandrasekhar, who is alleged to have orchestrated a massive fraud. Fernandez has already appeared before the ED for questioning several times in connection with the case.

The money laundering probe stems from a Delhi Police FIR that accused Chandrasekhar of duping Aditi Singh and Shivendra Singh — the spouses of former Ranbaxy promoters Shivinder Singh and Malvinder Singh — of ₹200 crore. The ED alleges that Chandrasekhar laundered the proceeds of the crime, using them to fund a lavish lifestyle and shower expensive gifts, including luxury items and financial favours, on Fernandez and others.

The High Court had earlier ruled that Fernandez’s plea to quash the ECIR was not maintainable, as the investigation was still underway and sufficient material had already been collected against her. The apex court’s refusal to interfere now means that Fernandez will continue to face trial and investigation in the money laundering case.

With PTI inputs