E-Paper
Aircel Maxis case: Delhi HC stays trial court proceedings against P Chidambaram
The Delhi high court on Wednesday stayed a trial court proceedings against former Union minister P Chidambaram in ED case.
The Delhi high court on Wednesday stayed the trial court proceedings against former Union minister and senior Congress leader P Chidambaram in the Aircel-Maxis case lodged by the Enforcement Directorate.
The Delhi High Court also issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate and sought its response on P Chidambaram's petition challenging the trial court's order taking cognisance of the charge sheet filed by the probe agency against him and his son Karti Chidambaram 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, news agency PTI reported.
Senior advocate N Hariharan and lawyers Arshdeep Singh Khurana and Akshat Gupta, representing P Chidambaram, contended that the special judge took cognisance of the charge sheet 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 raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of P Chidambaram's petition, asserting that no sanction for prosecution was required as the allegations were unrelated to his official duties.
As interim relief, P Chidambaram has sought a stay on trial court proceedings, which are currently at the stage of charge consideration. The trial court had taken cognizance of charge sheets filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation and ED in the Aircel-Maxis case on November 27, 2021, and summoned Chidambaram and his son Karti.
Chidambaram’s counsel argued that under Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), prior sanction for prosecution is mandatory when allegations pertain to acts performed in an official capacity. They claimed that the ED had failed to secure this sanction, rendering the proceedings improper. The plea requested quashing the special judge's order, which took cognizance of offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) without the necessary sanction.
The ED and CBI alleged that Chidambaram, as Union finance minister in 2006, approved the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance for the Aircel-Maxis deal beyond his authority, benefiting certain individuals and receiving kickbacks. However, Chidambaram maintains the allegations are baseless and the process followed was within legal bounds.
(With inputs from PTI)
