Aircel-Maxis case: Chidambaram moves Delhi HC against order taking cognisance of ED chargesheet

NEW DELHI: Senior Congress leader P Chidambaram on Tuesday approached the Delhi High Court challenging a trial court's order taking cognisance of the chargesheet filed by the Enforcement Directorate against him and his son Karti in the Aircel-Maxis case.

Chidambaram's lawyer contended before Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri that the special judge took cognisance of the chargesheet for the alleged offence of money laundering in the absence of any sanction for prosecution of the former Union minister who was a public servant when the offence was allegedly committed.

The counsel for the Enforcement Directorate (ED) raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the petition and submitted that sanction for prosecution was not required in this case as the allegations pertain to actions of Chidambaram which have nothing to do with his official duties.

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, who heard the matter for some time, listed it for further hearing on Wednesday.

The high court was informed that the case is also listed before the trial court on Wednesday.

As an interim relief, Chidambaram has also sought a stay of the proceedings before the trial court.

The trial court had on November 27, 2021, taken cognisance of the chargesheets filed by the CBI and the ED against Chidambaram and his son Karti in the Aircel-Maxis case and had summoned them for a later date.

As the high court asked whether sanction for prosecution was sought by the agency in the case, the agency's counsel said it was not required.

Even assuming that sanction was required, the cognisance order cannot be set aside on this ground as it is a curable defect, the ED's lawyer submitted.

Senior advocate N Hariharan and lawyers Arshdeep Singh Khurana and Akshat Gupta, representing Chidambaram, said obtaining sanction for prosecution under section 197(1) CrPC is a mandatory requirement and even as on date, no sanction has been obtained by the ED to prosecute the Congress leader.

The counsel said the proceedings before the trial court are currently fixed for consideration on charge.

"The protection under section 197(1) CrPC extends to the petitioner in the subject case and the special judge erred in taking cognisance of the offence under section 3 read with section 4 of the PMLA as against the petitioner without the ED having obtained previous sanction under section 197(1) CrPC.

"Hence the impugned order taking cognisance of the offences mentioned in the prosecution complaint dated June 13, 2018 and October 25, 2018, ought to be set aside and quashed qua the petitioner on this ground alone," the plea said.

As per section 197(1) of the CrPC, when any person who is or was a judge or magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the government, is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no court shall take cognisance of such offence except with the previous sanction.

While taking cognisance of the charge sheet, the special judge had said there was sufficient evidence to summon Chidambaram and the other accused in the corruption and money-laundering cases lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the ED respectively.

The cases relate to alleged irregularities in the grant of Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) approval in the Aircel-Maxis deal.

The approval was granted in 2006 when Chidambaram was the Union finance minister.

The CBI and the ED had alleged that as the finance minister, Chidambaram had granted approval to the deal beyond his capacity, benefitting certain persons, and received kickbacks.