CBI custody of Chidambaram extended till Friday

New Delhi: Trouble continues to brew for former finance minister P. Chidambaram as the Supreme Court refused Monday to entertain his plea challenging the Delhi high court order which had dismissed his anticipatory bail plea in the INX Media case filed by the CBI. The Supreme Court said that Mr Chidambaram’s plea against the August 20 high court order had become infructuous and he would have to seek regular bail before the CBI special court.

Hours after the Supreme Court’s decision, the former minister was produced before the CBI special court on the expiry of his four-day custodial interrogation that the agency secured on August 22. The trial court on Monday extended his CBI custody by four more days. He will be produced before the court again on August 30.

Special judge Ajay Kumar Kuhar gave the order on the CBI’s demand for extension of his custody by five days after hearing arguments for nearly 40 minutes. “He has been confronted with one of the co-accused. The accused is to be confronted with other accused persons as well. It is also submitted that certain files have to be shown on the transactions of

INX Media,” solicitor-general Tushar Mehta said. The court allowed Mr Chidambaram’s family members and lawyers to meet him for half an hour daily during the CBI custody. Mr Chidambaram’s wife Nalini and son Karti are also present in the court.

Earlier on Monday, hearing Mr Chidambaram’s plea, the apex court said “he is at a liberty to seek remedy in accordance with the law in the corruption case”. A bench comprising Justices R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna, however extended till Tuesday the interim protection from arrest given to Mr Chidambaram in the INX Media money-laundering case lodged by the Enforcement Directorate. The court rejected Mr Chidambaram’s challenge to the high court order declining his plea for anticipatory bail, as both Kapil Sibal and Abhishek “Manu” Singhvi recalled they had moved the Supreme Court at 4 pm on August 20 challenging the high court order that was pronounced at 3.20 pm, but the matter was not heard. Both Mr Sibal and Mr Singhvi had appeared for Mr Chidambaram.

Assailing the high court order on the ED case relating to the allegation of money-laundering of “monumental magnitude”, Mr Sibal said the anticipatory bail was rejected “completely mechanically”, “without application of mind” and relying on the note given to the high court by the ED in a sealed cover after the end of arguments on January 25, 2019. As solicitor-general Tushar Mehta objected to the criticism of a constitutional authority (the high court judge), Mr Sibal countered: “Am I entitled to say that the judge was wrong? Am I entitled to say there was no application of mind? Like some of us who don’t.” Mr Sibal wondered: “Why did the judge wait for seven months to give his verdict? It took him seven months to understand the gravity of the offence.”

Daring the ED to produce a bank account or immovable property that could be attributed to Mr Chidambaram, Mr Sibal objected to the solicitor-general handing over some material in a sealed cover for the court’s perusal. Mr Sibal wanted the ED to disclose when it had got hold of the material it wanted the court to see — was it prior to December 19, 2018, January 1, 2019 or January 21, 2019 — when Mr Chidambaram was quizzed by the ED — or after his questioning. He said no material relating to the case could be handed over to the court without showing it to Mr Chidambaram and eliciting his reply. Taking exception to the reference to the Airceel-Maxis case in the high court ruling, Mr Sibal questioned its relevance. He pointed to the trial court judge taking exception to the prosecution having taken 11 adjournments in the case.

The CBI, meanwhile, confronted Mr Chidambaram with former Niti Aayog CEO Sindhushree Khullar during the interrogation. A 1975-batch IAS officer of the Union Territory cadre, Ms Khullar was additional secretary in the finance ministry when developments relating to the INX Media allegedly took place, sources said. She arrived at the CBI headquarters in the morning but the questioning could not be completed, and she has been called again on Tuesday. The CBI also sought sanction to prosecute her in the case, which has been forwarded by the Central Vigilance Commission to the competent authority.