Today, On 8th August, The Supreme Court asked Karti Chidambaram to respond to the Enforcement Directorate’s challenge against the Delhi High Court’s decision to defer the PMLA charge hearing. The Court noted the High Court “issued its direction a little prematurely.”
New Delhi: The Supreme Court requested Congress MP Karti Chidambaram to respond to the Enforcement Directorate (ED)’s appeal challenging a Delhi High Court order that deferred the hearing on arguments related to charges in money laundering cases tied to the Chinese visa scam and the Aircel-Maxis case.
A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that the “High Court had issued its direction a little prematurely” and could have opted to allow both trials to proceed concurrently instead of prioritizing one over the other.
Also Read: [INX Media Case] Delhi Court Allows Congress MP Karti Chidambaram To Travel Austria & UK
The Court stated,
“The High Court has interfered little prematurely. The High Court could have safeguarded by saying that both trials will continue together and this trial will not take precedence…”,
In one of the cases, allegations involve irregularities in the issuance of visas to 263 Chinese nationals in 2011, during which Karti’s father, P Chidambaram, served as the Union Home Minister.
The Aircel-Maxis case concerns irregularities in granting Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearances, allegedly occurring in 2006 when P Chidambaram was the Union Finance Minister, with claims of quid pro quo.
Earlier this year, Karti Chidambaram petitioned the High Court after the trial court refused to defer the arguments on charges in the money laundering cases.
He argued that the trial for the predicate offense had not yet reached the charge stage, and if he were to be discharged later, the money laundering case could not proceed.
He asserted that if the trial court moved forward in the PMLA case to frame charges without waiting for a decision on the predicate offense, it could lead to a paradoxical situation that would contradict the statutory framework of the PMLA.
The High Court granted him relief, noting that criminal activity related to the scheduled offense is essential not only for initiating prosecution under the PMLA but also for its continuation.
The High Court had stated,
“Prima facie, the discharge of the petitioner in the predicate offence would certainly have bearing on the trial of the PMLA case inasmuch as in case of discharge, there can be no offence of money laundering against him,”
The court also referred to the S. Martin case, where the key issue before the Supreme Court was whether the trial must be completed in a scheduled offence before framing charges.
In contrast, Chidambaram sought to keep the framing of charges in the PMLA case on hold until the predicate offence charges were finalized.
After issuing notice on Chidambaram’s plea, the High Court directed the trial court to postpone arguments on the charges in the PMLA case.
It is important to note that the Supreme Court recently stayed the trial in a PMLA case where the chargesheet for the predicate offence had not been filed for seven years.
Case Title: DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT Versus KARTI P. CHIDAMBARAM
Diary Number: 40582-2025