Karti Chidambaram, the son of former Finance Minister P. Chidambaram, on Wednesday approached the Supreme Court with a plea to quash a notice issued by the Central Bureau of Investigation on September 26, summoning him in the Aircel-Maxis case on October 4.
Alleging that the “whole aim of the Central government is to throttle the voice of Mr. P. Chidambaram”, Mr. Karti contended that the CBI notice in the case is in the nature of a re-investigation/de novo investigation. That too, after the trial court had discharged all the accused on February 2, 2017. Mr. Karti alleged that the action of the CBI was prohibited in law and malafide.
“The Central government has been pursuing a politically motivated vendetta against the petitioner, his family, and all persons even remotely connected with the petitioner (Karti). The said vendetta is without any basis and is reflective of the mala fide intentions of the Central government. For the past three years the Central government has pursued its vendetta against the petitioner by abusing the powers of agencies like the Income Tax Department, Enforcement Directorate and the Central Bureau of Investigation(all of which are under the control of the Central government),” the petition filed by Mr. Karti through advocate Arun Natarajan submitted.
The petition accused the government of “selective and routine leak of information” to the media anonymously through Central agencies with a view to malign the petitioner and his father in the eyes of the public at large in violation of their fundamental rights.
‘News leaked to press’
The petition took exception to how the CBI “leaked to the press” that the FIR in Aircel-Maxis case had not been quashed and further investigation is continuing into the alleged irregularities into grant of foreign investment approval. It drew the court’s attention to the “extensive media coverage of the news leaked by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) that it had attached the bank account of the petitioner to the extent of ₹1.16 crore as ‘proceeds of crime’ in the Aircel-Maxis case.” The petition challenged the jurisdiction of the ED and called the press note issued by the agency as containing “wild allegations against him without any basis”.
The case concerns the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) approval to Global Communications Holdings Services Limited, Mauritius to invest $800 million in Aircel, a telecommunications company. The approval was granted in 2006 with the concurrence of the then Finance Minister who was the competent authority. The chargesheet filed in the Special Court on August 29, 2014 alleged that the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) was competent to grant approval. “However, the approval was granted by then Finance Minister [P. Chidambaram]”.
The petition submitted that Mr. Karti appeared before the CBI on November 19, 2014, and answered all the questions put to him and had denied “any connection with, or knowledge about, the grant of FIPB approval to Global Communication Services Holdings Limited, Mauritius”.
Subsequently, on December 16, 2014, Mr. Chidambaram also appeared before the CBI as part of the agency’s further investigation and “categorically denied any irregularity or illegality in the approval granted”. Following which, the trial court passed the discharge order in the case.
Now, after a “lapse of three years”, the CBI has sent a notice directing Mr. Karti to appear before it on September 14, 2017, to answer “certain questions” relating to the case. This was followed by the summons issued on September 29.
In a letter to the CBI, through his lawyer, Mr. Karti on Wednesday said the issuance of the present notice, when all the accused had been discharged and the proceedings terminated by the Special CBI court on February 2, was illegal, mala fide, and to harass him and his family.
Mr. Karti said taht in reply to the previous notice, he had raised “valid objections” — while requesting the CBI to not to insist on his appearance — but the agency did not address the issues, nor responded. Neither he nor his father was named in the charge sheet filed by the agency in the case on September 28, 2014, said the letter.
