P. Chidambaram has challenged a Delhi trial court’s acceptance of an ED chargesheet against him and his son in the Aircel-Maxis case. His petition argues that prosecution lacked necessary sanction under Section 197(1) CrPC for public servants. The case involves alleged irregularities in a 2006 deal, with potential implications for corruption investigations.
New Delhi: Senior Congress leader P. Chidambaram has moved the Delhi High Court to challenge a trial court’s order that took cognisance of the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) chargesheet against him and his son, Karti Chidambaram, in the Aircel-Maxis case. The petition argues that the trial court’s decision was flawed as no sanction for prosecution was obtained under Section 197(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)—a mandatory requirement for prosecuting public servants for actions allegedly committed in their official capacity.
The charges relate to alleged irregularities in granting Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) approval to the Aircel-Maxis deal in 2006, during Chidambaram’s tenure as the Union Finance Minister. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the ED allege that Chidambaram exceeded his authority to approve the deal, benefiting certain entities and allegedly receiving kickbacks.
On November 27, 2021, the trial court took cognisance of the chargesheets filed by both the CBI and the ED and summoned Chidambaram and his son. This prompted the Congress leader to seek legal recourse, asserting that the lack of a prosecution sanction undermines the validity of the proceedings.
Key Legal Arguments
Chidambaram’s legal team, led by Senior Advocate N. Hariharan, argued before Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri that the trial court erred in taking cognisance without prior sanction under Section 197(1) CrPC. The section states that no court shall take cognisance of an offence committed by a public servant in the discharge of their official duties without the government’s prior sanction. “The protection under Section 197(1) CrPC extends to the petitioner,” the plea contends, adding that the failure to obtain this sanction is a significant legal defect.
The ED’s counsel, however, countered this argument, stating that the alleged offences had no connection to Chidambaram’s official duties and, therefore, no sanction was required. The ED also argued that even if sanction was mandatory, the absence of it is a “curable defect” that does not invalidate the proceedings.
Justice Ohri, who heard arguments on Tuesday, listed the matter for further hearing on Wednesday. Meanwhile, Chidambaram has sought an interim stay on proceedings before the trial court, which is currently considering charges under Section 3 and Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Chidambaram’s plea also seeks to quash the trial court’s cognisance order regarding prosecution complaints dated June 13, 2018, and October 25, 2018, citing procedural lapses.
The trial court had previously determined there was sufficient evidence to summon Chidambaram and other accused in the corruption and money-laundering cases linked to the Aircel-Maxis deal. The judge noted that the allegations were grave and merited further judicial scrutiny. However, the Delhi High Court’s decision on whether sanction is indeed required could significantly impact the case’s trajectory.
Background of the Allegations
The Aircel-Maxis case revolves around allegations that Chidambaram, as Finance Minister, approved the FIPB proposal beyond his authority. The approval allegedly facilitated illegal foreign investment, violating procedural norms, and benefitting select parties. These approvals were allegedly linked to kickbacks and money laundering.
In 2020, both the CBI and ED filed chargesheets against Chidambaram, Karti, and other accused. The case has since become a focal point in corruption allegations against the Congress leader, with multiple court proceedings examining various facets of the charges.
What Lies Ahead?
The Delhi High Court’s decision on whether the trial court’s cognisance is valid without prosecution sanction under Section 197(1) CrPC could set a precedent for similar cases involving public servants. If the High Court rules in favor of Chidambaram, it may lead to significant implications for ongoing investigations and trials under the PMLA and other corruption laws.
The matter remains under judicial scrutiny, with the High Court set to reconvene on Wednesday, while proceedings in the trial court are also expected to continue.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
