The Supreme Court on Friday ordered Karti Chidambaram, son of former Union Finance Minister P. Chidambaram, to appear before the CBI headquarters in New Delhi on August 23 for questioning in connection with a case involving alleged kickbacks paid by INX Media for obtaining clearance from the Foreign Investment Promotion Board. A Bench of Chief Justice of India J.S. Khehar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud directed that Mr. Karti, who was present in the courtroom, to carry with him all the necessary documents required for his defence in the case. He was also given permission to be accompanied by an advocate, who will sit in a room adjoining the room where the questioning will take place.
Review of plea on September 1 to cancel LOC
The court said it would review on September 1 Mr. Karti's plea for cancelling the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against him. The hearing began with Mr. Karti's lead counsel and senior advocate Gopal Subramanium detailing the facts and merits of the case against him.
Mr. Karti, in his counter affidavit, said an LOC is issued in the likelihood of a person trying to leave the country to evade arrest or trial. Or if the person fails to appear in court despite issuance of non-bailable warrants or other coercive measures. None of these two instances has occurred in his case. He was a person with deep roots in Indian society and had given a statement in 2014 to the CBI that he was not “familiar with the FIPB, its processes, or its composition”.
Chief Justice Khehar asked Mr. Subramanium, "So your submission is that you are so clean that you will not appear [before the investiating officer]?" "No, there is no unwillingness on my part to appear. I have appeared in the past," Mr. Subramanium replied. Chief Justice Khehar observed, "We are not interested on satisfying ourselves with the merits of the case against you. That's not our job. That's the job of the investigating officer [IO]. Give all your story to them and walk away." "We don't want to go into any merits. We just have to write a line that may fix you... but we do not want to do it...," he said. Mr. Subramanium responded, "I am prepared to appear even today. I am throwing in the gauntlet. But I want protection. I want a lawyer within hearing distance." On Mr. Karti's plea for cancelling the LOC against him, the Bench asked the CBI need to keep the LOC alive now. "The LOC is intended to prevent an accused from evading arrest. The purpose of the LOC is fulfilled once he appears before the IO," Justice Chandrachud addressed Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.
Status report
Mr. Mehta handed over to the court a status report of the ongoing probe in a sealed cover. The law officer submitted that the "investigation is at a very, very, very initial stage" and there is material substantiating the charges in the FIR against Mr. Karti and some others in the case. He said the status is reviewed every month. Initially, the court discussed several suggestions, including keeping the LOC alive for seven days from August 23 and then let it expire.
"Call him every day or twice a day. End of the questioning you would have found something. If you have no material, there is no need for LOC. If you have material, then you can arrest him," Chief Justice Khehar told Mr. Mehta.
"LoC a softer option"
Mr. Mehta said the LoC was a "softer option" rather than other statutory methods. To this, the Chief Justice turned to Mr. Subramanium and said "better not tie their hands". Mr. Subramanium retorted, "I am not at their mercy. I have a quashing petition pending in the Madras High Court. If they have the courage, let them do whatever they want under the law." Chief Justice told Mr. Subramanium, "In a polite manner they [CBI] are saying they could have done much more, but they have done the least." The court finally posted the case for a review of the LOC on September 1.
Lifting of HC stay order
On August 14, the apex court lifted the Madras High Court's stay order on the LOC issued by the Bureau of Immigration against Mr. Karti, while urging him to "cooperate and participate". To a plea by Mr. Karti that he had booked his tickets for the U.K. on August 16, Justice Khehar had replied: "We have had the bitter experience of allowing people to go abroad and they never come back... You [Karti] first show us your bona fide by going to the investigating officer". The court had pointed out that the FIR against Mr. Karti was registered on May 15. He was issued a notice on June 15 to appear before the investigating officer on June 29. The CBI, on the very following day (June 16), had issued the LOC. Mr. Subramanium submitted that Mr. Karti had requested the CBI for a subsequent date. This was done so, and a second notice was issued on July 4. In this notice, Mr. Karti's presence was sought on July 21. Mr. Subramaniam had said it was only post July 21, almost a month after the LOC was issued, that the accused incidentally came to know of the existence of the LOC. The Madras High Court had recorded in its August 10 stay order that the issuance of the LOC on the very next day after the notice was issued as " prima facie unwarranted", Mr. Subramanium had argued. The Bench, however, had acknowledged the submission made by the CBI that the intent and language of the LOC was not to detain or arrest Mr. Karti. It was only a measure to ensure that he did not leave the country. The High Court had also stayed the LOC issued against C.B.N. Reddy, Ravi Visvanathan, Mohanan Rajesh and S. Bhaskararaman. The CBI has alleged that Mr. Reddy, Mr. Visvanathan and Mr. Rajesh were Directors of Advantage Strategic Consulting, which allegedly received kickbacks on behalf of Mr. Karti.
