The Delhi High Court has temporarily paused trial court proceedings against senior Congress leader and former Finance Minister P Chidambaram in the high-profile Aircel-Maxis money laundering case. This significant development came after Chidambaram challenged the trial court’s cognisance of chargesheets filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
High Court Issues Notice to ED
On Tuesday, Chidambaram petitioned the Delhi High Court to dispute the trial court’s decision. Following this, Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri issued a notice to the ED and asked for its response. The court stated that the proceedings against Chidambaram would remain stayed until the next hearing, scheduled for January 22. Justice Ohri emphasized that a detailed order would follow in due course.
Contention Over Prosecution Sanction
Chidambaram’s legal team, including senior advocate N Hariharan and lawyers Arshdeep Singh Khurana and Akshat Gupta, argued that the trial court’s cognisance of the chargesheet was procedurally flawed. They claimed the lack of prior sanction for prosecution under Section 197(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) was a fundamental error. The section mandates government approval before prosecuting a public servant for acts committed in the discharge of official duties.
The ED, however, countered this argument, asserting that no such sanction was necessary as the allegations were unrelated to Chidambaram’s official responsibilities. The agency’s counsel contended that the petition challenging the chargesheet’s cognisance lacked legal merit.
Timeline of the Case
The trial court initially took cognisance of the chargesheets on November 27, 2021, and summoned Chidambaram and his son, Karti Chidambaram, for a subsequent date. The charges relate to alleged irregularities in the 2006 Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) approval granted during Chidambaram’s tenure as Union Finance Minister.
The CBI and ED have accused Chidambaram of exceeding his authority to approve the Aircel-Maxis deal, allegedly benefiting certain individuals and receiving illicit kickbacks in return. These allegations form the basis of the corruption and money laundering charges under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Legal Implications of Section 197(1) CrPC
The crux of Chidambaram’s defense rests on Section 197(1) of the CrPC, which requires government sanction to prosecute judges, magistrates, or public servants for offenses tied to their official duties. His lawyers argued that the special judge failed to adhere to this requirement, rendering the chargesheet’s cognisance invalid.
Chidambaram’s plea highlighted that the ED’s prosecution complaint, dated June 13, 2018, and October 25, 2018, should have been quashed solely for lack of sanction. The defense insisted that this procedural lapse granted him protection under the law, which the trial court overlooked.
Key Allegations Against Chidambaram
The Aircel-Maxis case involves accusations of corruption and money laundering related to the FIPB approval for a foreign investment deal. The approval, granted during Chidambaram’s term as Finance Minister, allegedly exceeded his jurisdiction. Investigating agencies claim that this led to undue benefits for certain parties, with financial gains accruing to Chidambaram and his associates.
Next Steps in the Legal Battle
As the case moves forward, the Delhi High Court’s stay order temporarily halts the trial court’s proceedings. The focus will now shift to the January 22 hearing, where the High Court will further examine the legality of the trial court’s actions and the necessity of prosecution sanctions.
This case remains a focal point of legal and political debate, given Chidambaram’s high-profile status and the broader implications for the interpretation of procedural safeguards under the CrPC.