india

Updated: Nov 19, 2019 01:34 IST

The Delhi high court said on Monday that facts of another case were mentioned in its November 15 order denying bail to former finance minister P Chidambaram only as a reference, and there was no “cut and paste job” in the ruling.

Judge Suresh Kumar Kait’s clarification came as Chidambaram, who was arrested on August 21 in connection with alleged irregularities in approval granted to broadcaster INX Media in 2007 for receiving foreign investment, approached the Supreme Court for bail, challenging the high court’s order.

A bench led by the newly sworn-in Chief Justice of India (CJI) SA Bobde agreed to hear Chidambaram’s appeal on Wednesday.

In his petition before the Supreme Court, Chidambaram assailed the mixing-up of facts in the Rohit Tandon case and refusing him (Chidambaram) bail in the INX Media case brought by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the anti-money laundering agency.

Tandon, a lawyer, has been arrested in separate money laundering cases and is out on bail.

In his petition before the Supreme Court, Chidambaram asserted: “The patent non-application of mind in the Impugned Order is a distinct and separate ground for reversal of the impugned order and grant of bail. This is reflected in the clear insertion of facts relating to a distinct and different case of one Shri Rohit Tandon into the factual context of the case of the Petitioner i.e., mixing up the facts of the case titled Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in (2018) 11 SCC 46 as if they were the facts of the Petitioner’s case.”

Taking suo motu (a Latin expression meaning on its own motion) media reports that referred to a cut-and-paste job in passing the order, Justice Kait on Monday issued a new order, saying: “I clarify that in para 34 of the judgment dated 15.11.209 (in the case of P Chidambaram) only a reference to the observations made by this court in ‘Rohit Tandon vs Enforcement Directorate’ in bail application no 119/2017 have been mentioned.

“In Paragraph no 35, the facts of the aforesaid case have been mentioned. It has nowhere been mentioned that the observations made in para 35 of the judgment are of the present case (in the case of P Chidambaram). Thus, there is no cut and paste as alleged and I hereby make it clear that observations made in para 35 shall be read and as confined to the case of ‘Rohit Tandon vs Enforcement Directorate’,” the high court order said.

The high court also directed the newspapers who have “published the wrong averments to clarify the same in their respective newspapers on 10.11.2019.”

Some media reports on Sunday and Monday alleged that justice Kait’s judgment in Chidambaram’s case resembled both a previous high court order as well as a Supreme Court decision on the bail plea of lawyer Rohit Tandon.

The reports also said justice Kait’s 41-page judgment denying bail to the 74-year-old Congress leader, in parts, resembled a counter-affidavit filed by ED during the course of the proceedings against him.

During the day, ED also filed a petition in the high court seeking corrections in justice Kait’s order.

The ED application said that factual assertions that had been attributed to ED actually forms part of one of the judgments which was relied on by it during the course of arguments.

“Inadvertently, it appears that the said factual portion of the judgment relied by the respondent (ED) instead of being quoted or summarised as part of the relied upon judgment, have been inadvertently/ accidentally referred to in the 15.11.209 judgment,” it said.

In the INX Media money-laundering case, the ED arrested Chidambaram on October 16. He had been arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on August 21 in a corruption case related to the foreign investment received by the broadcasting company and was granted bail by the Supreme Court on October 22.

CBI registered the case on May 15, 2017, alleging irregularities in a Foreign Investment Promotion Board clearance granted to the INX Media group for receiving overseas funds in 2007, during Chidambaram’s tenure as finance minister in the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) govenrment.The ED subsequently lodged a money-laundering case.