Congress leader P. Chidambaram has filed an affidavit in the Madras High Court to clarify some points in the Aircel-Maxis case regarding the grant of approval by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) when he was Finance Minister.
He said the proceedings initiated by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) against his son Karti Chidambaram in connection with the Aircel-Maxis case “is to cause political embarrassment to me and besmirch my reputation and the reputation of the members of my family.”
Mr. Chidambaram has filed the affidavit in response to proceedings in a writ petition moved by Mr. Karti Chidambaram seeking the quashing of a summons issued by the ED.
“I understand that during the hearing of the case on November 25, counsel for the ED made certain observations regarding the approval granted by the FIPB and submitted that the investigations against Mr. Karti Chidambaram were in respect of the said FIPB,” Mr. Chidambaram said.
CBI submitted reports
In this connection, he said, the CBI had investigated the said FIPB approval fully, even after the filing of the charge sheet in the Aircel-Maxis case, and had submitted status reports to the Supreme Court. This fact was recorded in the order of the apex court dated September 9, 2015. The CBI had recorded the statements of all FIPB officials, including the then Additional Secretary and the Chairman of FIPB, he added.
“In addition, the CBI recorded my statement on December 6, 2014. All the persons who gave statements to the CBI affirmed and demonstrated that the approval was granted by the FIPB and recommended to the competent authority, namely, the Finance Minister, for his approval in accordance with the Extant Guidelines. The Finance Minister granted approval in the ordinary course of government business,” Mr. Chidambaram said.
‘ED lacks jurisdiction’
Noting that the CBI had not found or reported any offence under any law in respect of the said FIBP approval, the former Union Minister said, “When there is no schedule of offence, and no proceeds of crime exist, the ED absolutely lacks jurisdiction under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, to proceed further.”
Recording the submissions, Justice B. Rajendran reserved his order.
