P Chidambaram hearing in Supreme Court Updates: The Bench rises for the day, directing Mehta to continue his arguments on behalf of the ED on 29 August, 11 am. Interim protection from arrest to P Chidambaram extended till Thursday.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Bhima Koregaon case on a petition filed by Romila Thapar and Others. Mehta points out that in that case too, the case diary was placed before the Court. “As a matter of practice, courts look into case diaries to satisfy their judicial conscience,” he argued.
The Bench rises for the day, directing Mehta to continue his arguments on behalf of the ED on 29 August, 11 am.
Interim protection from arrest to P Chidambaram extended till Thursday.
After handing over a large compilation of case laws to support his argument against disclosure of evidence ahead of filing of the chargesheet, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta requested the Bench to peruse both the case diary and material on record.
“There’s no prejudice to the accused if the police diary is placed before Court,” Mehta said.
Solicitor General has cited judgments of CrPC Section 172 to persuade the bench to look at the case diary, as aid in the case. He also argued that showing the case diary to the accused could prejudice investigation, influence witnesses. “The diary need not be seen but I want the court to see how the victimhood being plead by the petitioner does not hold,” Mehta said.
To Sibal’s argument that Chidambaram should be confronted with the evidence, Tushar Mehta, representing the Enforcement Directorate, said that Abhishek Manu Singhvi had argued that the former finance minister’s lawyers should be given access to the evidence. “This is what happens when two counsels argue for one client,” Mehta said.
“This is not a witch-hunt as alleged. We have evidence in our possession and it is cogent evidence,” Mehta told the Bench.
Reading out relevant paragraphs from an earlier judgement, Mehta further argued that the apex court had observed that it is “baffling as to how can an accused rely upon the material obtained during investigation to seek anticipatory bail.”
“I’m going a step further to satisfy the court’s conscience as regards authenticity of the documents,” he said.
Justice R Banumathi reminds the ED the apex court should not be shown evidence that has not been used to confront the accused in the arguments made on P Chidambaram’s behalf.
SG Tushar Mehta says evidence cannot be shared with accused before filling of the chargesheet, to which senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who is representing P Chidambaram, interjects and states that he never made the case that accused should be given access to evidence but he should be confronted with it.
ED states that overseas banks have given some specific inputs regarding properties, companies etc regarding P Chidambaram’s benami accounts abroad.
“We have issued letters rogatory (LR), we have got some and are awaiting more,” argued SG Mehta. (Letter rogatory are a formal request from a court to a foreign court to obtain information or evidence from a specified person within the jurisdiction of that court)
“At this stage, if the Supreme Court intervenes, it will be preventing us from exercising our statutory right to arrest,” he added.
As the investigation into the money-laundering in the INX Media case is still going on, the ED argued that they were at the stage when they can’t share any documents due to the peculiar nature of the material in the case.
Even adjudicatory authority has no access to those documents until the charge-sheet is filed.
SG Mehta urges Supreme Court not to interfere at this stage and curtail ED’s authority to arrest.
“They keep saying the arrest is for humiliation, humiliation, humiliation but I say it is for prevention, prevention, prevention, with a capital P,” SG Mehta said, while representing the ED during the court proceedings.
“Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is a self-contained code. It takes care of all the constitutional rights,” argues ED.
ED says it has a statutory right to arrest but whether custodial interrogation is required is to be decided by the Special Court.
“Statutory right to arrest can’t be curtailed by the Supreme Court, only high ranking officials are authorised under the law to make such arrests. There has to be reasons recorded in writing, which we do have in this case” said SG Mehta
As on date, money laundering is going on, ED tells Supreme Court against P Chidambaram’s petition. SG Mehta said he is ready to give evidence to show laundering is still on and the ED has direct evidence to show it.
Money laundering is independently a criminal offence, SG Mehta argued. No documents can be shared with him (P Chidambaram) till the complaint is filed" he said.
Most of the evidence is in the form of electronic format and within it will be gone in minutes if placed before the Supreme Court, hence evidence cannot be shared until the prosecution complaint is filed.
“We are presently concerned with money laundering part. Money laundering is a separate offence, independent of the predicate offence.” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said.
Mehta argues that P Chidambaram’s petition isn’t seeking discharge or validity of a law and hence limited questions need to be answered by this court.
He also emphasises on objectives behind the money laundering law, and says agencies have to be deal with very intelligent people since a stupid man can’t launder money. Most of the evidence is electronic and there will be several layers of a crime.
Former finance minister P Chidambaram’s son Karti on Wednesday tweeted regarding media reports quoting “anonymous CBI sources” claiming that the Congress leader was “evasive” during the interrogation by the central investigative agency in the INX Media case.
‘We challenge the government to produce a shred of evidence in support of one undisclosed bank account’: Karti Chidambaram
“We challenge the government to produce a shred of evidence in support of one undisclosed bank account, one undisclosed property or one shell company anywhere in the world,” the former Union Minister’s son Karti Chidambaram said in a statement on Twitter.
Karti Chidambaram is also an accused in the INX Media case and is out on bail.
Exuding confidence in the former Union minister, Chidambaram’s family asserted that the truth will prevail.
“We are a family possessed of enough wealth. We are all income tax accesses. We do not crave for money and have no need to seek money in unlawful ways,” read the statement.
The former finance minister’s family commended him for his “impeccable honesty, work and contribution” and added that it cannot be wiped out by a “campaign of vilification”.
There are chapters plucked out of the ghost stories, one day these ghosts will be buried, it stated.
Union Minister P Chidambaram told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that he has “no account or any property abroad, much less 17 benami accounts and 10 properties, as alleged” by the ED.
Claiming that investigating agencies were out to “humiliate” him, Chidambaram also urged the top court to direct the ED to produce transcripts of his questioning on three occasions earlier. This, he said, would establish that he had not been evasive in his replies.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing P Chidambaram, said the former Union Minister was not evasive during his questioning and has fully cooperated in the probe. “You (Enforcement Directorate) want to arrest me, but for what reason? The answer is – to humiliate me, to humiliate me and to humiliate me, minute by minute and hour by hour,” he said, representing his client on Tuesday.
He said the probe agency filed the case in 2017, whereas the alleged offences alleged are of the period 2007-2008.
“The transcripts will show whether Chidambaram was evasive during his questioning, as alleged by the ED,” Kapil Sibal said. He also told the bench that the ED cannot place documents in the court randomly and “behind the back” for seeking former Union minister’s custody.
“They are just producing documents at random and saying this is part of the case diary,” Sibal said, adding, “They cannot place the documents behind the back and seek custody of accused.”
P Chidambaram, who is currently in CBI custody in the INX Media case and seeking protection from arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in the INX Media case told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that he has “no account or any property abroad, much less 17 accounts and 10 properties, as alleged” by the ED.
In a rejoinder affidavit, filed in response to the ED claim that it had found “17 benami foreign bank accounts” used for laundering money and purchase of 10 properties, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Chidambaram, filed an application seeking direction to the ED to produce the transcripts of the questioning conducted on 19 December 2018, 1 January and 21 January 2019, in the case.
A CBI court on Monday remanded former finance minister P Chidambaram to the custody of the central investigative agency in connection with the INX Media case till 30 August, after the Supreme Court labelled his plea challenging the rejection of anticipatory bail as “infructuous” earlier in the day. The ED, also investigating the case, will reportedly seek his custody once the CBI has concluded interrogation.
Special Judge Ajay Kumar Kuhar gave the order on CBI’s demand seeking an extension of his custody by five days after hearing arguments for nearly 40 minutes on Monday.
In an affidavit against the CBI remand order, ex-FM had dismissed the charges against him and expressed fear that coercive methods may be used to “elicit responses” from him while he is in CBI custody.
The Supreme Court, which is hearing twin pleas by P Chidambaram — one against the ED in the INX Media case and the other challenging the CBI remand — will on Wednesday hear ED’s arguments against granting anticipatory bail to the former finance minister.
A Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices R Banumathi and AS Bopanna is set to hear the arguments of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on former finance minister P Chidambaram’s two petitions in the INX Media case on Wednesday.
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi presented arugments in defence of Chidambaram in the case over Monday and Tuesday.
The Supreme Court is likely to continue hearing former finance minister P Chidambaram’s plea against Delhi High Court’s decision of rejecting his anticipatory bail plea from 2 pm on Wednesday.
Find us on YouTube