NEW DELHI: Three individuals accused in the Tripura chit-fund scam have approached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition (SLP), challenging a recent Tripura High Court order that denied their plea to reactivate their passports, Aadhaar, PAN and other financial instruments.
The Tripura High Court had earlier dismissed their application seeking clarification of a 2014 order by a division bench, which directed the blocking of government-issued IDs of all directors and partners of companies implicated in chit-fund scams. The investigation into the case has been entrusted to the CBI.
According to prosecution sources, the scam initially involved Rs 15–20 crore, though the amount may rise as the probe expands.
The three accused, including Binoy, argued before the High Court that they were neither directors nor partners of any company involved in the scam, and that the original FIR contained no such allegations. The HC dismissed their plea solely on the basis of an oral statement by a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) that their names were included in the chargesheet, without examining the legal or factual position.
In the SLP, filed by Advocates Tarini K. Nayak and Biraja Mahapatra, the accused contended that they were never made parties to the 2014 writ petition proceedings in which the orders were passed. They argued that the HC directions violated the principles of natural justice and caused them “severe prejudice,” as the deactivation of personal identification documents was undertaken without following due process under the Passports Act, Aadhaar Act and Income Tax Act.
The Tripura High Court has been monitoring multiple cases related to chit-fund and Ponzi schemes in the state. Its January 19, 2023 order in the 2014 writ petition included sweeping directions such as attachment and auction of properties, deactivation of passports, PAN and Aadhaar cards, and banking instruments of directors and partners of defaulting companies, along with arrest and production of such individuals before competent courts.
The petitioners maintain that, as they were neither directors nor partners of the implicated companies, the orders should not apply to them and have sought reactivation of their identity documents and financial instruments.