india

Updated: Aug 29, 2019 19:36 IST

In the continuing arguments on former finance minister P Chidambaram’s pre-arrest bail request, the Centre’s senior law officer Tushar Mehta on Thursday told the Supreme Court that the Enforcement Directorate should not be ordered to share information with the Congress leader. Mehta’s argument was designed to counter the reasoning extended by Chidambaram’s team that the federal investigating agency should not be allowed to put any material before the court in a sealed cover that hadn’t been shared with the former minister first.

Mehta came right down to the point as soon as the bench of justices R Banumathi and AS Bopanna resumed the hearing on Chidambaram’s re-arrest bail request for the fourth straight day. The court has stayed Chidambaram’s arrest by the ED - he is already in CBI custody - till it hears his case.

The submission by Chidambaram’s team, Mehta told the top court, was “absurd and devastating results would follow if this submission is to be accepted”.

“It is preposterous. If the court accepts this, then this proposition will have ramifications…. It will lead to exposing evidence and witnesses in similar cases at an investigating stage,” Solicitor General Mehta submitted before the court.

Mehta continued: “If the Supreme Court accepts Chidambaram’s plea, then it is bound to adversely affect other cases including those of Vijay Mallya, Mehul Choksi, Nirav Modi, Chhagan Bhujbal, Deepak Talwar, Zakir Naik, Hafiz Saeed… and others.” Because some of the accused in these cases will cite this ruling to similarly seek access to information against them.

Mehta, who is representing the Enforcement Directorate, argued that confronting an accused with evidence when he is still a free man “is an open invitation to tamper the evidence”.

Chidambaram, who he referred to an individual with resources and knowledge, would be able to erase the details of the money trail if he gets to know the nature of the evidence with the investigators.

If an accused is confronted with evidence at a pre-anticipatory bail stage, then this would destroy the case, Mehta said, underscoring that it was best to confront the accused with evidence when he is in custody.

The government’s second senior-most law officer also rebutted the argument presented by Chidambaram’s legal team - Abhishek Singhvi and Kapil Sibal - that the high court judge had incorrectly described the charges against Chidambaram as grave.

“The quantum of punishment is no measurement of gravity of offence. What is relevant is the impact of the offence on society and the nation... Offences against the economy of the country... Economic offences are gravest of offences,” Mehta contended.

He also rubbished Chidambaram’s lawyers’ argument that the alleged transaction took place in 2007-08 and that the money laundering law, under which he is charged, were introduced in 2009. The money is still being laundered, he said.

The Centre has also disproved Chidambaram’s claim that the agencies did not ask the pertinent questions when they had summoned him for questioning.

“Investigation is a science, not a question answer session. If we have ten things, we may divulge only three… This is the art of investigation,” Mehta said.