Speaking to reporters after the meeting, Baghel said the agencies were functioning under political pressure and selectively targeting Congress leaders. He claimed that responses were intentionally withheld from the Supreme Court to prolong Lakhma’s judicial custody. “If the ED had submitted its reply on time, the matter would have been decided on December 17 itself,” Baghel said.
Addressing questions about his son Chaitanya Baghel’s recent release on bail, the former chief minister rejected allegations of political influence. “People are saying I got my son released. The truth is that the court granted him bail after reprimanding the investigating agencies,” he said. Baghel added, “If it were up to me, my son would not have gone to jail at all.”
Baghel further alleged that a deliberate narrative was being built to justify continued investigations against Lakhma despite the absence of proven guilt. “If Kavasi Lakhma is considered innocent, why are the ED and EOW continuing their action?” he asked, accusing ruling party leaders of shedding “crocodile tears” while failing to ensure timely legal procedures.
Kavasi Lakhma, a six-time विधायक from the Konta assembly constituency in Sukma district, is among the most prominent tribal leaders of the Congress in the Bastar region. He survived the 2013 Darbha Valley Maoist attack and served as excise minister in the Baghel-led government formed in 2018. In the 2023 Assembly elections, he was one of only four ministers from the previous cabinet to retain his seat.
The case relates to the alleged Chhattisgarh liquor scam, which is being investigated by the ED following an FIR registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau. The agency has claimed irregularities amounting to over ₹3,200 crore, involving politicians, excise department officials, and private businessmen.
According to the ED, the alleged scam was executed through a syndicate during the previous Congress government, involving senior bureaucrats and liquor traders. The investigation remains ongoing.
Baghel said the Congress would continue to raise questions over what it describes as the misuse of central agencies. “Justice delayed due to deliberate obstruction is injustice,” he said, warning that such practices undermine democratic institutions
