The Madras High Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition by Nalini Chidambaram, wife of Congress leader and former Finance Minister P Chidambaram, asking the court to quash the summons issued by Enforcement Directorate to appear as a witness in the money laundering probe in the Saradha Chit Fund scam case.
Nalini, a Supreme Court lawyer, had told the court that the ED cannot summon a woman for investigation out of her place of residence under Cr.P.C Section 160. But Justice S M Subramaniam who heard the petition rejected the contention of Nalini and said that such exemptions were not mandatory and were subject to facts and circumstances of the case.
“This court is of the opinion that based on gender, exemption cannot be sought for in a routine manner,” the justice said in his 145-page order on Nalini's petition and that of the Enforcement Directorate seeking to vacate a stay granted by the court earlier.
Justice Subramaniam also asked the ED to issue a fresh summons fiing a date for the investigation and proceed with it in accordance with law. The case had its origin in September 2016 when the ED issued a summons to Nalini asking her to present herself as a witness in the Saradha Chit Fund scam case in its Kolkatta office.
But the Madras High Court by an interim order on September 21, 2016, had stayed the summons based on a petition moved by Nalini. The ED summons was based on the statement given by Manoranjana Sinh, an accused in the Saradha Chit Fund scam that Nalini was paid Rs 1 crore by the Saradha Group for her appearances in court and Company law Board in connection with the purchase of a TV channel.
Nalini had argued that the summons served by the ED was politically motivated to damage her reputation. She also said that all lawyers appearing for suspects in criminal cases charge professional fee. The ED submitted that Manoranjana Sinh had given a statement claiming that Rs 1 crore was given to Nalini towards professional fee. "The petitioner was summoned to verify the claim. The agency believed that the fee was paid out of public money, funds collected from public as chits", said the ED.
Justice Subramaniam said in his verdict that the language used in CrpC 160 proviso is that "no women shall be required" to attend investigation at any place other than their residence. “Thus, it is not as if there is a total and absolute exemption of the appearance before the Investigating Officer,” said the justice.