Aircel-Maxis case: Delhi HC stays trial court proceedings against Chidambaram

The CBI and ED alleged that as the former Union finance minister, Chidambaram granted approval to the telecom deal beyond his capacity, which benefitted certain persons, in return for kickbacks.

The Delhi high court on Wednesday stayed the trial court proceedings pending against senior Congress leader and former Union minister P Chidambaram in the Aircel-Maxis money laundering case being probed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

Congress MP P Chidambaram in Mumbai earlier this month. (ANI Photo)

The ED had alleged that Chidambaram, in his capacity as Union finance minister during the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, had illegally granted Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) approval in the Aircel-Maxis deal in 2006.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the ED alleged that as the finance minister, Chidambaram granted approval to the deal beyond his capacity, which benefitted certain persons, in return for kickbacks. In March 2022, the city court had granted bail to the former Union minister and his son Karti in the case.

A bench of justice Manoj Kumar Ohri also sought probe agency’s response in Chidambaram’s plea challenging city court’s November 27, 2021, order of taking cognisance of the chargesheet filed by the ED against him and his son Karti.

“I’ll pass a detailed order. Issue notice. Till the next date of hearing, the proceedings against the petitioner shall remain stayed,” justice Ohri said.

In his petition before the high court, the senior congress leader had sought for setting aside the city court’s order and staying the proceedings claiming that the alleged offence had been committed while he was a public servant, and the ED had failed to take sanction for initiating prosecuting against him. It went on to add that the city court erred in taking cognisance of the money laundering offence without the ED having obtained previous sanctions.

The ED, represented by special counsel Zoheb Hossain, objected to the maintainability of Chidambaram’s plea saying that the same was belated and was filed two years after the city court took cognisance of the charge sheet. He further claimed that the sanction was not required as the congress leader had not performed the actions, in discharge of his official duties.