The CBI charge sheet against former Union Finance Minister P. Chidambaram and 14 others is the result of a “scientific and professional investigation” conducted in the INX Media case, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court on Friday.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, for Mr. Chidambaram, countered the CBI claim. He said the senior Congress leader was not interrogated even once by the CBI during his 58-day remand in the case.
“Even after 58 days, they have not interrogated me even once. In fact, I have been interrogated only once in the past two years. Either the CBI is thoroughly incompetent or they don’t have the evidence. They could have gone to court for permission to interrogate me during my judicial remand of over 40 days,” Mr. Sibal submitted.
‘Media trial’
Mr. Sibal said the case was a media trial.
A three-judge Bench led by Justice R. Banumathi is hearing a plea for regular bail filed by Mr. Chidambaram in the CBI part of the case. The apex court hearing came hours after the CBI filed a charge sheet in the trial court against Mr. Chidambaram, his son Karti and other accused and companies under various offences, including forgery, criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code and provisions in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Mr. Sibal countered Mr. Mehta, saying the Supreme Court hearing was on grant of bail and not on the charge sheet filed earlier in the day. “Let them prove their charge sheet in trial. No point bringing it here in a matter of bail. I will answer the allegations in trial... The 2G case charge sheet contained serious allegations, finally what came of it,” he asked.
Mr. Chidambaram has also been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which is probing the money laundering angle in the case. The trial court allowed it his remand for seven days.
Mr. Mehta said the ED intended to seek an extension of the remand on the expiry of seven days. He explained to the Supreme Court why the CBI chose to file the charge sheet two days ahead of the 60-day deadline.
“The mandated 60 days was to expire on Sunday. We did not want to take the risk and file the charge sheet on a Saturday. For us, today was practically the last day to submit it,” he said.
Mr. Mehta, who is also appearing for the ED, said the Directorate patiently bid its time to “join the dots” before making Mr. Chidambaram’s arrest.
Explaining the build-up to arrest Mr. Chidambaram, Mr. Mehta narrated how the ED, like any other professional agency, did not arrest him immediately when his anticipatory bail plea was rejected.
“We examined 12 witnesses between October 6 and 9. We applied to the trial court for his arrest on October 11. We wanted the material on him for a meaningful arrest. We wanted an effective investigation done. There was no prejudice… I am explaining this because there was some projection in certain quarters of a deliberate attempt not to arrest him,” he submitted.
Mr. Mehta said “the CBI case in INX Media kickbacks was about how the money was generated. The ED case is about how the money was taken care of”. The scope of the investigation, evidence, witnesses in the CBI and ED probes in the case were completely separate. “In fact, the evidence we have collected in the ED probe is more shocking,” he claimed.
He submitted that the ED investigation was at a crucial stage and alleged the unearthing of a tranche of emails indicating other irregular FIPB (Foreign Investment Promotion Board) approvals.
Mr. Mehta said Mr. Chidambaram should be denied regular bail. “His clout is such that even his mere presence is enough to intimidate or influence the witnesses”.
Triple test’ for grant of bail suggestion
The Solicitor General even proposed to the court to apply a new 'triple test’ for grant of bail. He said bail should be granted on the basis of the gravity of the offence alleged, the wherewithal of the accused person and whether he has sufficient infrastructure abroad to sustain him.
“We are in an era where persons guilty of financial crimes are fleeing the country. They were all responsible people. They had reputation, standing in society. They had properties here. One was a parliamentarian, very rich. Is it enough to say he is responsible, reputed? Country needs to go for zero tolerance policy against corruption,” Mr. Mehta urged the court.
In response, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, also for Mr. Chidambaram, said bail was granted on the facts of individual cases. “The Solicitor has more than once used the term 'nation' here. Your Lordships do justice in individual cases and not in national cause. Each plea for bail made by an incarcerated individual is decided on its own merits,” he argued.
The apex court reserved the bail plea for orders.
