Last updated on: August 21, 2019 16:15 IST
Senior Congress leader P Chidambaram, who is facing threat of arrest, failed twice on Wednesday to get immediate relief from the Supreme Court which refused to grant him urgent hearing on his plea seeking protection from arrest in the INX media scam cases.
Photograph: Arun Sharma/PTI Photo
Chidambaram, who was home minister and finance minister in the United Progressive Alliance government from 2004-2014, has sought a stay on the Delhi high court's Tuesday judgement dismissing his anticipatory bail plea and paving the way for his arrest lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Enforcement Directorate.
His petition was first mentioned by senior advocate Kapil Sibal on Wednesday morning before a bench, comprising Justices N V Ramana, M Shantanagoudar and Ajay Rastogi, which sent it for being placed before the Chief Justice of India for his consideration to accord it urgent hearing.
When the team of lawyers representing Chidambaram did not receive any information on urgent listing, Sibal once again mentioned it before the same bench after it assembled post lunch.
Sibal, flanked by other senior advocates Vivek Tankha and Indira Jaising, told the bench that the investigating agencies have issued a look out notice against Chidambaram as if he is going to "run away".
The top court said the defects in the petition had been removed "just now" and it "cannot be listed for hearing today itself".
"Without listing of the petition, we cannot hear the matter," said the bench.
"Sorry Mr Sibal. We cannot hear the matter," the bench said when he repeatedly asked for hearing the matter on Wednesday itself.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the plea of Chidambaram for hearing the matter on oral mentioning saying that the papers are not with him.
Just as the bench assembled in the post lunch session, Sibal said he was once again mentioning the matter for listing as he had not heard anything from the Registry about its listing.
The bench told him that there were some defects in the petition and the Registry had informed about it.
When Sibal said the defects have been cured, the bench called Registrar (judicial) Surya Pratap Singh and enquired about the defects.
The Registrar said the defects have been cured "just now", and the petition will be placed before the Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi for allocating it before an appropriate bench.
At this, Sibal said that the matter cannot be listed on Wednesday as the CJI is sitting in the Constitution bench and will not rise before 4 pm.
IMAGE: CBI notice pasted on the boundary wall of Chidambaram's residence in New Delhi. Photograph: Vijay Verma/PTI Photo
While the senior advocate was repeatedly insisting the matter be hear, the bench told him, "We have already directed the matter to be placed before CJI".
"Generally, the matters for listing are placed before the CJI in the evening but in the morning we immediately refer it to CJI," the bench said.
"It is not our job, but the Registry has to take the step," the bench further said.
When Sibal reminded the bench that in the past on the basis of oral mentioning protection from arrest has been granted to people, the bench said, "we directed the Registry and it found that there were defects in the petition".
At the end of the hearing, Sibal said that Chidambaram was ready to give an undertaking that he will not run away but the bench did not consider the submission and concluded the brief hearing.
In the morning, Mehta, appearing for the CBI and the ED, had told the bench that it was a case of money laundering of "monumental magnitude".
One of the law officers assisting Mehta said, "We are ready and fully prepared to oppose any move by Chidambaram".
Sibal told the apex court that Chidambaram's plea was dismissed by the Delhi high court on Tuesday.
He said Chidambaram was granted protection from arrest for more than a year in the INX case lodged by the CBI and the ED.
Sibal said the high court had also refused to grant any protection from arrest to Chidambaram to enable him to approach the apex court.
"The matter should be heard. I (Chidamabaram) should not be arrested in the meanwhile," Sibal said.
He also told the court that at 2 am on Wednesday the probe agencies pasted a notice on Chidambaram's house that he has to appear before them within two hours.
When Sibal said they have got their petition numbered from the Registry, the bench said, "You finish all formalities".
IMAGE: Senior Congress leader and lawyer Salman Khurshid arrives at the Supreme Court. Photograph: Kamal Singh/PTI Photo
Earlier, Chidambaram in his petition in the Supreme Court said the high court's observation that he was the "kingpin" in the INX Media case was completely baseless and that the FIR was "politically motivated and an act of vendetta".
The former Union minister on Wednesday filed an appeal in the Supreme Cout challenging the Delhi high court order dismissing his petition for pre-arrest bail in the INX Media case.
"The judge's observation that the petitioner is the kingpin i.e. the key conspirator in this case is completely baseless and supported by no material whatsoever. The judge has ignored the crucial fact that the petitioner simply approved the unanimous recommendation of the Foreign Investment Promotion Board which was chaired by secretary, economic affairs and consisted of five other secretaries to the Government of India," he said in the petition.
Chidambaram said observations of the high court that the magnitude of the case justifies denial of bail is manifestly "illegal and unjust". Approval was granted for an original investment and the downstream investment.
"Both investment proposals were examined and processed in the normal course and placed before the FIPB. It was the FIPB which recommended grant of approval and the petitioner simply approved the recommendation. None of the FIPB members have been attempted to be arrested," he said.
Contending that his antecedents are "impeccable", Chidambaram said he is a sitting member of the Rajya Sabha and has never been accused of any offence.
"There is no possibility of his fleeing from justice. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that despite having cooperated fully with the investigation the object of seeking his arrest is only to humiliate him and injure his reputation," the plea submitted.
He said that INX Media sought approval for Foreign Direct Investment in a proposed TV channel up to 46.216 per cent of the issued equity capital.
"The policy allowed investment up to 74 per cent of the equity. FIPB unit examined the proposal, found it to be in order and submitted the case to the FIPB. The FIPB consisted of six secretaries to the Government of India and was chaired by the secretary, economic affairs. The FIPB unanimously recommended the proposal and placed it before the finance minister for his approval, along with several other proposals. The high court failed to appreciate that in May 2007, the finance minister (petitioner) granted the approval in the normal course of official business," the petition said.
He said that the high court failed to appreciate that ten years later, based on alleged 'oral source information', the CBI registered an FIR on May 15, 2017 against four companies, Karti Chidambaram (petitioner), "unknown officers/officials of the ministry of finance" and other unknown persons.
"The petitioner was not named as an accused or suspect, there is not even any allegation against the petitioner in the body of the said FIR. The allegation in the FIR was that INX Media had made down-stream investment without obtaining the prior approval of the FIPB and, in order to regularise that investment, had approached the petitioner's son and made a payment of Rs 10 lakh (by cheque) to another company allegedly associated with the petitioner's son. The petitioner has learnt that it is the case of the said company that it received the payment towards consultancy work and further, the petitioner's son was never a shareholder or Director of the said company at any point of time," Chidambaram said.
He said the high court failed to appreciate that on January 21, the CBI is learned to have sought sanction to prosecute him and it can therefore be inferred that the CBI has concluded its investigation, prepared the draft chargesheet, and is ready to file the same in the trial court, subject to sanction being granted.
"The high court failed to appreciate that while seeking sanction for prosecution, it is necessary to submit a draft charge-sheet to the sanctioning authority. Once the investigation has been completed without arrest of the petitioner, there is no ground for CBI to oppose bail or seek custody," the plea said.
IMAGE: A guard closes the gate during a raid by Enforcement Directorate officials inside the residence of Congress leader P Chidambaram, in Jor Bagh, New Delhi. Photograph: Kamal Kishore/PTI Photo
Chidambaram said he has always cooperated in the investigation, appeared for questioning on June 6, 2018, and was ready to appear for further questioning.
"Hence, there was no ground for denying bail at this stage," he said adding that the high court failed to appreciate that there is no prima facie case against him.
Chidambaram said the high court has failed to appreciate that there was no allegation that he has tampered with the evidence or the witnesses.
The Congress leader said that there is no material which points to the petitioner or to his involvement in any of the transactions.
Chidamabaram said the observation of the high court judge that the petitioner was evasive during the questioning is "totally baseless and supported by no material whatsoever".
"The petitioner is law abiding citizen and has reputation to sustain in the society. He is a sitting Member of the Rajya Sabha. The antecedents of the petitioner are impeccable. He has never been an accused of any offence. There is no possibility of his fleeing from justice. Personal interrogation at the instance of the CBI can certainly be done by securing petitioner's presence before the concerned authorities on given dates and times, but custodial interrogation is not at all warranted so as to protect petitioner's fundamental right under Article 14, 19 (1) (d) and 21 of Constitution of India," he said.
Earlier, the legal team of Chidambaram asked the CBI not to take any coercive action against the former Union finance minister till the matter was heard by the apex court.
Hours after the Delhi high court refused to grant any protection from arrest to Chidambaram in the INX media case, the CBI issued a notice to him on Tuesday, asking him to appear before the investigation officer within two hours, after failing to find him at his residence.
In response, the legal team of Chidambaram said the notice did not mention the specific provision of law under which he was summoned and asked not to take any coercive action against him till his petition comes for hearing in the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
Chidambaram suffered a major setback Tuesday as the high court dismissed his anticipatory bail in the INX Media scam describing him as the "kingpin", and paved the way for the investigating agencies, CBI and ED, to arrest him.
"Simply because he is a Member of Parliament would not justify grant of pre arrest bail to him" and his custodial interrogation was required for an effective investigation and "granting bail in cases like the instant one will send a wrong message to the society," the high court had said.
The CBI had registered an FIR on May 15, 2017 alleging irregularities in the Foreign Investment Promotion Board clearance granted to the INX Media group for receiving overseas funds of Rs 305 crore in 2007 during Chidambaram's tenure as finance minister.
Thereafter, the ED in 2018 lodged the money laundering case in this regard.
Chidambaram's role had come under the scanner of various investigating agencies in the Rs 3,500-crore Aircel-Maxis deal and the INX Media case involving Rs 305 crore.
It was during his tenure as finance minister in the UPA-I government that clearances from the Foreign Investment Promotion Board were given to the two ventures.
Chidambaram's petition had said that though no summons had ever been served on him by the ED in this case, he had an apprehension of arrest in view of the summons issued to him by the CBI.
Used here for educational purposes for CS students
No comments:
Post a Comment