CourtKutchehry

Supreme Court Refuses to Quash ₹200 Crore Money Laundering Case Against Jacqueline Fernandez Linked to Sukesh Chandrasekhar

Apex court says trial must decide allegations; actor claims she is victim of conman’s targeted scheme

Delhi High Court’s July order upheld; ED alleges luxury gifts worth ₹7 crore were proceeds of crime

By Our Legal Correspondent

New Delhi, September 23, 2025: The Supreme Court of India on Monday declined to interfere with a Delhi High Court order that dismissed Bollywood actor Jacqueline Fernandez’s plea to quash the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) case against her in a ₹200 crore money laundering investigation involving alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih told Fernandez’s counsel, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, that the allegations must be tested during trial and cannot be dismissed at this stage.

“We will not interfere at this stage,” the bench said, granting Fernandez liberty to raise her defence before the trial court.

Background of the Case

The ED registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) — equivalent to an FIR — against Fernandez under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

The case stems from the Delhi Police’s charges against Sukesh Chandrasekhar, accused of duping the spouses of former Ranbaxy promoters Shivinder Singh and Malvinder Singh of ₹200 crore through impersonation and deceit.

The ED alleges that Fernandez received luxury gifts worth around ₹7 crore from Chandrasekhar, including jewellery, designer handbags, clothes, and vehicles, which were allegedly purchased using proceeds of crime.

Fernandez’s Defence

Fernandez has consistently denied any wrongdoing, claiming she was unaware of Chandrasekhar’s criminal background.

In her plea, she argued:

She had no role in the predicate offence of extortion under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).
The items she received were gifts, not laundered money.
She is a prosecution witness in the predicate offence, and therefore proceedings against her should be quashed.
The ED itself admitted that Tihar Jail officials gave Chandrasekhar access to mobile phones and electronic devices, which he allegedly used to contact her and others.

Fernandez’s counsel stressed that she was a victim of a targeted scheme by Chandrasekhar, who was “infatuated” with her.

Delhi High Court’s July 3 Order

On July 3, 2025, the Delhi High Court dismissed Fernandez’s petition to quash the ECIR, holding that:

Determination of whether she committed a crime can only be made during trial.
Questions about her intent and knowledge of the alleged offence must be examined by the lower court.
The allegations, if taken at face value, warranted continuation of proceedings.

Supreme Court’s Observations

While refusing to interfere, the Supreme Court noted:

At this stage, the allegations must be accepted as they stand.
The trial court should not be influenced by any observations made by the High Court or Supreme Court in this matter.
The plea to quash the case was premature, as evidence must be examined during trial.

Justice Datta remarked that if one friend gives something to another and it later turns out the giver is involved in an offence, “it becomes difficult” — underscoring the complexity of determining culpability in such situations.

ED’s Allegations in Detail

According to the ED’s chargesheet filed in August 2022:

Fernandez accepted expensive gifts despite allegedly knowing about Chandrasekhar’s criminal activities.
She initially concealed details of her financial dealings with him and deleted data from her phone after his arrest.
She later admitted to receiving gifts when confronted with evidence.

The ED claims these gifts were purchased using money obtained through Chandrasekhar’s ₹200 crore fraud.

Sukesh Chandrasekhar’s Role

Chandrasekhar, currently lodged in Mandoli Jail, is accused of running a high-profile fraud scheme by impersonating senior government officials.

He allegedly targeted wealthy individuals, including the spouses of the Ranbaxy promoters, promising favours in exchange for large sums of money.

The case has also implicated several members of the film fraternity, with Chandrasekhar allegedly using his access to celebrities to bolster his image and facilitate his schemes.

Legal Significance of the Ruling

The Supreme Court’s refusal to quash the case reinforces the principle that criminal allegations must be tested during trial, not dismissed prematurely.

It also underscores the judiciary’s reluctance to interfere with ongoing investigations under the PMLA, especially in high-value cases involving alleged proceeds of crime.

Public and Industry Reaction

The ruling has sparked debate in legal and entertainment circles:

Supporters of Fernandez argue she is being unfairly targeted due to her celebrity status.
Critics say the case highlights the need for greater caution among public figures when associating with individuals of questionable background.

Social media has been divided, with hashtags supporting both Fernandez’s innocence and the ED’s investigation trending intermittently.

Next Steps

Fernandez will now have to present her defence before the trial court, where the ED will lead evidence to prove its allegations.

The trial will examine:

Whether the gifts were indeed proceeds of crime.
Whether Fernandez had knowledge of Chandrasekhar’s criminal activities at the time she received them.
The extent of her involvement, if any, in laundering the alleged proceeds.

Broader Implications

This case is part of a larger trend of the ED pursuing high-profile money laundering investigations involving celebrities, business leaders, and politicians.

It raises important questions about:

The threshold for naming individuals as accused in PMLA cases.
The balance between protecting reputations and ensuring thorough investigations.
The role of circumstantial evidence in proving knowledge and intent.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision marks another legal setback for Jacqueline Fernandez, who has been fighting to clear her name since the ED named her in its chargesheet.

By upholding the Delhi High Court’s order, the apex court has signalled that the trial process must run its course, allowing both prosecution and defence to present their cases in full.

For Fernandez, the road ahead will involve navigating a complex legal battle while continuing her career under the shadow of serious allegations.

SC Rejects Jacqueline’s Plea to Quash ₹200 Cr PMLA Case