INX Media case: Delhi HC clarifies that there was no 'copy-paste- in P Chidambaram's order, contentious para pertains to separate case

Editor’s Note: On Monday, the Delhi High Court’s Justice Suresh Kait issued a statement clarifying that “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 copy-paste as alleged and I hereby make it clear that the observations made in para 35 shall be read as and are confined to the case of Rohit Tandon vs Enforcement Directorate_”._  New Delhi: The Enforcement Directorate on Monday approached the Delhi High Court seeking rectification of an “inadvertent” error in the order denying bail to former Union finance minister P Chidambaram in the INX Media money laundering case. The ED in its application urged the court to correct the “accidental slip/inadvertent error” in the November 15 verdict passed by Justice Suresh Kait. Kait has reproduced some paragraphs from a 2017 Supreme Court order rejecting bail to Delhi-based lawyer Rohit Tandon in a money laundering case, as per the application. The error was in four paragraphs of the 41-page judgment given by Justice Kait. [caption id=“attachment_7197831” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  File image of Congress leader P Chidambaram. PTI[/caption] The judge also referred to a 2017 high court order in the Tandon versus ED case in which it was observed that “there is a provision of trial by special courts in case of ‘schedule offences’ under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Possibility of a joint trial would arise under Section 44 of the PMLA only when a charge sheet is filed upon completion of the investigation and the case is committed to a special court. The ED, in its plea filed through the central government’s standing counsel Amit Mahajan and advocate Rabat Nair, sought correction of the errors which “inadvertently and due to accidental slip have crept in paragraphs 35, 36, 39 and 40 of the order.” “It appears that the factual assertions which have been attributed to the respondent ED as part of its submissions forms part of one of the judgments which were relied on by it during the course of arguments. “Inadvertently, it appears that the said factual portion of the judgment relied on the ED instead of being quoted or summarised as the part of the relied upon judgments, have been inadvertently/ accidentally referred to in the order dated November 15 as the factual submissions made by the ED,” the application said. The ED clarified that it has not placed those facts as part of its submission in support of the argument for rejection of bail to Chidambaram. It said the facts of Tandon’s case are neither a part of the investigation papers of Chidambaram’s case nor were remotely relatable to the probe undertaken by the ED in this case. Tandon, who was arrested in 2016, is an accused in the demonetisation-related money laundering case. The senior Congress leader moved the Supreme Court on Monday challenging the Delhi High Court’s Friday order denying him bail in the money laundering case. In the INX Media money-laundering case, the ED had arrested 74-year-old Chidambaram on 16 October. He was arrested by the CBI on 21 August in the INX Media corruption case and was granted bail by the Supreme Court in the CBI case on 22 October. The case was registered by the CBI on 15 May 2017, alleging irregularities in a Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) 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 had lodged a money-laundering case in this regard in 2017. _**Also read: INX Media case: Ex-FM P Chidambaram moves Supreme Court challenging Delhi HC order dismissing bail plea**_