Delhi HC stays Aircel-Maxis case against Chidambaram, seeks ED's reply

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday stayed the trial court proceedings against senior Congress leader P Chidambaram in the Aircel-Maxis case lodged by the Enforcement Directorate.

The high court also issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and sought its response on Chidambaram's petition challenging the trial court's order taking cognisance of the chargesheet filed by the agency against him and his son Karti in the money laundering case.

"Notice issued. Till the next date of hearing, the proceedings against the petitioner shall remain stayed. List on January 22," Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri said, adding that he will pass a detailed order later.

 

Senior advocate N Hariharan and lawyers Arshdeep Singh Khurana and Akshat Gupta, representing Chidambaram, contended that the special judge took cognisance of the chargesheet for the alleged offence of money laundering in the absence of any sanction for prosecution of the former Union minister who was a public servant when the offence was allegedly committed.

The ED counsel raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the petition and submitted that the sanction for prosecution was not required in this case as the allegations pertain to Chidambaram's actions that have nothing to do with his official duties.

As interim relief, Chidambaram has also sought a stay on the proceedings before the trial court.

The trial court on November 27, 2021, took cognisance of the chargesheets filed by the CBI and the ED against Chidambaram and Karti in the Aircel-Maxis case and summoned them on a later date.

Chidambaram's counsel said obtaining sanction for prosecution under Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is mandatory and the ED has not obtained it till date to prosecute the Congress leader.

The counsel said the proceedings before the trial court are currently fixed for consideration of charges.

"The protection under Section 197(1) CrPC extends to the petitioner in the subject case and the special judge erred in taking cognisance of the offence under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the PMLA as against the petitioner without the ED having obtained previous sanction under Section 197(1) CrPC.

"Hence the impugned order taking cognisance of the offences mentioned in the prosecution complaint dated June 13, 2018, and October 25, 2018, ought to be set aside and quashed qua the petitioner on this ground alone," the plea said.

According to Section 197(1) of the CrPC, when any person who is or was a judge or magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the government, is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no court shall take cognisance of such offence except with the previous sanction.

While taking cognisance of the chargesheet, the special judge had said there was sufficient evidence to summon Chidambaram and the other accused in the corruption and money laundering cases lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the ED respectively.

The cases relate to alleged irregularities in the grant of Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) approval in the Aircel-Maxis deal. The approval was granted in 2006 when Chidambaram was the Union finance minister.

The CBI and the ED have alleged that as finance minister, Chidambaram had granted approval to the deal beyond his capacity, benefitting certain persons, and received kickbacks.