The Enforcement Directorate (ED) said the “art of investigation” does not oblige it to reveal to former union finance minister P. Chidambaram the entire gamut of evidence collected during investigation into the INX Media case.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for ED, told the Supreme Court that complete transparency towards an accused, especially one so high-profile like the senior Congress leader, would have been an open invitation to him to tamper with evidence of money laundering. A tell-all policy in favour of accused persons destroys cases.
Mr. Mehta said it was “preposterous and absurd” for Mr. Chidambaram to claim that only evidence he was privy to should have been shown to the Delhi High Court. Such an approach, if adopted, would affect other sensitive investigations into Vijay Mallya, Mehul Choksi, Neerav Modi, Sarada chit fund and terror funding cases. “It will result in disastrous consequences,” Mr. Mehta submitted on Thursday.
“The art of investigation is that we reveal only certain things. If we confront him with 15 money trails when he really has 30, he will do his best to wipe out the rest,” Mr. Mehta reasoned.
The top law officer, representing the ED, was countering arguments raised by Mr. Chidambaram’s side that the Delhi High Court denied him protection from arrest on August 20 solely on the basis of ‘material’ handed over by the probe agency in a sealed cover “behind his back.”
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, for Mr. Chidambaram, said the case was a classic example of how “sealed covers seal the fate of a man’s liberty.”
Mr. Chidambaram’s lawyers have questioned why he was not confronted with this material when he was questioned thrice by the ED on December 19, 2018, January 7 and January 21 of 2019. They sought a transcript of the interrogation sessions of the three days.
At the end of the fourth consecutive day of arguments, a Bench of Justices R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna reserved for orders the appeal made by Mr. Chidambaram for protection from arrest by the ED. Justice Banumathi said the apex court order would primarily focus on the question whether the probe agency should have first confronted Mr. Chidambaram with the material before placing it before the High Court in a sealed cover to deny him anticipatory bail.
The court ordered the ED to produce the transcripts of the three interrogation sessions it had with Mr. Chidambaram. The transcripts should have the authorised seal of the ED, Justice Banumathi told Mr. Mehta.
The court said its order would be pronounced on September 5. It further extended the interim protection from arrest for Mr. Chidambaram in the ED case till September 5. The court asked both sides to make written submissions by Monday on a separate plea made by Mr. Chidambaram against his arrest and remand by the CBI in the INX Media case.
Mr. Mehta dismissed Mr. Chidambaram’s argument that the alleged cause of action in the case happened in 2007-08, before amendments in the law made it an offence. He said the charges against Mr. Chidambaram show a “continuing offence.”
He said the alleged proceeds of crime received from the FIPB approval in 2007-2008 was laundered through shell companies over the years, parked abroad and invested in properties.
Mr. Mehta justified the frequent allusions to allegations against Mr. Chidambaram as of a ‘grave’ nature. He said offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act affect the economy of the nation.
“All economic offences are grave. Some may carry just a five-year imprisonment, but the quantum of punishment is not a measure of the gravity of offence. Knifing a person is an offence against an individual, but money laundering is an offence against society, the nation,” Mr. Mehta argued.
He said it was the duty of the ED to arrest Mr. Chidambaram and unearth the truth. It is easier to elicit information from an accused when he is in custody and not ensconced under the protective umbrella of anticipatory bail.
Custodial interrogation does not mean ‘third degree’ methods. The officers in charge are responsible and the accused is periodically produced in court.
“But anticipatory bail would reduce interrogation to a mere ritual,” Mr. Mehta argued, summoning several judicial precedents to his aid.
Mr. Sibal countered why the ED did not arrest Mr. Chidambaram for so many years if the evidence against him had been so strong.
“If the facts were so strong against me, he could have had me arrested... If he had all the evidence, if he had asked me questions on them and if I gave him evasive replies... Why did he not arrest me then and there? They did not arrest me in 2017 after the FIR was filed. They arrest me now, in 2019. I never said I cannot be arrested, but arrest should be made on proper grounds,” Mr. Sibal submitted.
“I challenge them to show one bank account, one undisclosed property. Tell them, My Lords, to show you one...,” Mr. Sibal told the court.
