In a relief to former Union Minister P Chidambaram in the INX media scam, the Supreme Court on Friday granted him protection from arrest by the Enforcement Directorate till August 26. Chidambaram is in the CBI custody in the INX case till August 26.
In real term, the SC’s decision does not matter much for Chidambaram as her is already in the CBI custody till August 26. However, his legal team sees the order as the first victory since the ED vehemently opposed Chidambaram’s plea for interim protection.
Meanwhile, a Delhi Court on Friday refused to adjourn the Aircel-Maxis case against Chidambaram and his son Karti on the pleas by the CBI and the ED, which sought the adjournment saying that another case pertaining to INX Media involving them was pending before the Supreme Court.
Special Judge OP Saini took strong objection to the agencies seeking repeated adjournments, saying “things have become very embarrassing for me”.
The court then reserved order on Chidambaram’s anticipatory bail plea for September 3 and extended the interim protection from Chidambaram’s arrest by the agencies till then.
In the Supreme Court, a Bench comprising justices R Banumathi and AS Bopanna said it will hear on August 26 the pleas filed by Chidambaram in which he has challenged the August 20 order of the Delhi High Court rejecting his anticipatory bail pleas in ED and CBI cases.
The SC Bench said it would also hear a fresh plea filed by Chidambaram, challenging Thursday’s order of remand passed by trial court by which he was sent to the CBI custody till August 26.
“In our view, having regard to the fact that the petitioner was also granted interim protection on July 25 and that the co-accused were also granted bail by the High Court, the petitioner is granted interim protection, insofar as the Enforcement Directorate case is concerned...Till the next date of hearing. List the matter on August 26,” the Bench said.
The court also sought reply of the ED on Chidambaram’s plea by Monday itself.
As soon as the order was dictated, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for ED, tried to hand over some documents in sealed cover to the court saying that the Bench should satisfy its conscience before passing an order granting protection from arrest to Chidambaram.
The move was objected by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Chidambaram, who said the same thing was done by the ED before the High Court and a note was submitted after the arguments were over.
The Bench refused to peruse the documents at this stage and asked Mehta to submit them on Monday, saying these are confidential and cannot be kept like this with the court.
The hearing led to several rounds of heated exchanges between Mehta and senior advocates and Chidambaram’s party colleagues Kapil Sibal and AM Singhvi.
Mehta vehemently opposed the order granting protection from arrest to Chidambaram in the money laundering case and said that the probe agency “has collected innumerable evidence to show that the money has been transferred from one company to another shell company”.
Mehta said Chidambaram amassed 11 properties outside the country and has 17 bank accounts, not only in India but also abroad, and the money was transferred through a web of shell companies.
Mehta said that lot of “hue and cry” and “political vendetta” is alleged by petitioner (Chidambaram) and his party colleagues but “I am saying with a great sense of responsibility that this is a case of money laundering of a monumental magnitude”.
He further asserted that custodial interrogation of Chidambaram was needed to unravel the truth. While being Union Finance Minister, Chidambaram had asked Indrani and Peter Mukherjea to “take care of his son” when she had met with him in 2007 regarding FIPB approval for their company INX Media, Mehta said.
The SG said they need to confront Chidambaram with the evidences collected so far, including some e-mail and money transaction, as several persons who have created the shell companies have executed a will in the name of Chidambaram’s granddaughter.
Mehta said Chidambaram has been evasive in his replies, refused to divulge anything and has not cooperated in the ED probe.
“Custodial interrogation of the accused is necessary to unravel the truth which cannot be done under the protective umbrella of anticipatory bail,” Mehta said, adding, the court should go through the case diary and satisfy its conscience before granting any relief to the former Minister.
In his arguments, Sibal said that it is violation of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution that his petition challenging the High Court order was not heard by the apex court on July 20 and 21 and he was arrested on Wednesday night.
“My rights under Article 21 cannot be frustrated”, Sibal said.
While rejecting the anticipatory bail plea, the Delhi High Court had taken on record a note submitted by the ED, which was not even argued, Sibal said.
“Word by word, comma for comma and full stop for full stop, even adjectives were copied as it was in the note and para-wise noting was done,” Sibal said, adding, if the courts are going to copy-paste from a note of probe agencies then how will common people protect themselves.
Singhvi said that in the anticipatory bail rejection order of the ED case, the High Court should not have made observations with regard to Aircel-Maxis cases.
The apex court was hearing two separate petitions filed by Chidambaram challenging the Delhi High Court August 20 verdict by which his anticipatory bail was dismissed in the cases registered by both the CBI and ED.
