india

Updated: Aug 26, 2019 15:06 IST

Providing some respite to former Union minister P Chidambaram, the Supreme Court on Friday protected him from arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which is probing the money-laundering aspect of the INX Media case in connection with which he has been arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

The order by a bench of justices R Banumathi and AS Bopanna came on the anticipatory bail application filed by the former finance minister. The protection will continue till August 26 when the bench will again take up the petition for further hearing. ED, which protested vehemently against the interim protection, was asked to file its response before the next hearing.

Chidambaram will, however, spend the weekend in CBI custody as the bench deferred his petition asking for a pre-arrest bail in the CBI case to August 26. His lawyers insisted on being heard on the plea on the ground the former minister was denied a hearing by the top court and that he filed his petition much before his arrest. The bench agreed to hear the plea along with Chidambaram’s special leave petition (SLP) against the trial court judge’s August 22 order remanding him to CBI custody for four days.

Also read | Jumping walls, scuffles: 90 mins of high drama before P Chidambaram’s arrest

“Considering the submissions made by Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner (Chidambaram), and Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General (for ED), in our view, having regard to the fact that the petitioner was also granted interim protection (by the HC) on July 25, 2018 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,” the court ordered.

CBI arrested Chidambaram on Wednesday night, hours after the SC did not accord an urgent hearing to his two appeals, filed against the Delhi high court’s day-old order of Justice Sunil Gaur (now retired) that rejected his pre-arrest bail petition in the INX media cases, one registered by CBI and the other by ED. On August 22, CBI produced Chidambaram before a special judge, which allowed the agency to interrogate him in custody till August 26.

The INX Media case relates to alleged irregularities in Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance given to the media group for foreign investment to the tune of ~305 crore in 2007, when Chidambaram was finance minister. CBI registered a first information report on May 15, 2017, alleging irregularities in the manner the clearance had been awarded. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) filed a money laundering case a year later.

SC ordered interim protection for Chidambaram despite Mehta’s objection and argument that the former minister cannot be arrested by ED since he is already in CBI custody. Mehta’s request to adjourn the matter to Monday, without any formal orders, was also turned down.

Heated arguments continued even after the court dictated its order. Appearing for ED, Mehta repeated his contention that the court must “satisfy its conscience” and go through the evidence the agency has procured so far in the case. But the bench did not go into the merits of the case for now and said it would peruse the documents only on Monday. Mehta urged the judges to read the documents before the next hearing, a request the judges did not accept. “We cannot take these sensitive documents in our custody,” Justice Banumathi told the solicitor.

Sibal and senior advocate AM Singhvi took strong exception to Mehta placing documents in a sealed cover before the court. Sibal alleged the documents were fabricated and the Solicitor General wanted to prejudice the minds of the judges. At this, Mehta retorted: “Yes I want to prejudice the minds of the judges in this case.” Sibal claimed ED has never till date confronted Chidambaram with the documents. “He has appeared before ED several times but not even once have they shown it to him,” Sibal contended.

The bench finally told Mehta to place its response in an affidavit, mentioning in it whatever can be brought in the public domain. “Rest can be put in the sealed cover,” Justice Banumathi said.

Opening his arguments in the case, Sibal said Chidambaram’s anticipatory bail plea in the CBI case cannot be declared infructuous only because he stands arrested. He narrated the sequence of events that followed the HC’s order and said the petition raises the issue of the former minister’s fundamental right to liberty. Sibal informed the court how attempts to get the matter listed for an urgent hearing failed on Wednesday and that the former minister was not under arrest when his petition was filed.

Sibal attacked the HC judge for his order and pointed out paragraphs in his judgment that were copy-pasted from the ED’s written note submitted to the court after the latter reserved the matter for orders. The senior advocate read out the paragraphs that were verbatim. He also said ED did not file a response to Chidambaram’s anticipatory bail petition. Singhvi criticised the HC judge for recommending that Parliament to do away with the pre-arrest bail provision in high-profile corruption cases. “So fundamental rights will change according to my profile,” Sibal contended.

Mehta said there was no question of anticipatory bail as Chidambaram is in custody. He informed the court that the probe in the case against the former finance minister was initiated after Indrani Mukerjea recorded her statement pointing to his involvement in the corruption case. The investigation so far has unraveled how the money was laundered and parked in shell companies that are owned by individuals closely linked or associated with Chidambaram, Mehta said, adding that 10 properties have been purchased abroad in the name of these companies and 17 bank accounts are operating in their name. “Those who own these shell companies have executed wills in the name of the accused’s grand-daughter,” he told the court.

Stating that Chidambaram has been evasive, Mehta urged the court to examine the evidence adduced so far . ‘The court must satisfy its conscience before extending a protective benefit to Chidambaram,” Mehta said.

Meanwhile, a Delhi court, irked with the CBI and ED seeking repeated adjournments in the Aircel Maxis case, reserved the order in a separate anticipatory bail plea moved by Chidambaram and his son Karti.

Special judge OP Saini said he was reserving the order for September 3, after he observed that both CBI and ED have been seeking repeated adjournments for the past year. “I have put the matter for orders. It is now up to you whether you want to argue or not,” the judge said, adding that the interim protection from arrest for Chidambarams in this case will continue till the next date of hearing.

During the proceedings, both agencies through additional solicitor general (ASG) KM Natraj and senior counsel Sonia Mathur sought adjournment on the ground that Chidambaram has been arrested by CBI in the INX Media case and a separate anticipatory bail application in a connected matter probed by ED is pending before the SC. “It is a connected matter and it will have a bearing on the Aircel Maxis case,” said the ASG. “No, it is not,” said the court, rejecting the submission and asking the prosecutors if they even have a case against Chidambaram.

Judge Saini took strong objection to the agencies seeking repeated adjournments.