Karti Chidambaram, son of former Union Minister P Chidambaram, has moved the Supreme Court, challenging the summons issued against him by the CBI in the Aircel Maxis case calling it "illegal and mala fide".
The CBI had alleged that Karti had "tampered" with evidence relating to an alleged graft case against him during his visits abroad in the months of May, June and July in 2017, the CBI alleged in the Supreme Court today.
The agency told a bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra that there was a need to issue a look out circular (LOC) against Karti as he had the "potential" to tamper with the evidence, and that he had done so during his visits abroad.
The CBI FIR, lodged on 15 May, had alleged irregularities in Foreign Investment Promotion Board’s (FIPB) clearance to INX Media, for receiving overseas funds to the tune of Rs 305 crore in 2007, when Karti's father was the Union Finance Minister.
The Dual Purpose of Look Out Circular
"The LoC has two purposes. First, considering the investigation, he (Karti) may not become an outlaw and second, he can tamper with the evidence outside India," Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for CBI, told the bench, which also comprises Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud.
He also said:
I will show he (Karti) has the potential to tamper with the evidence. During 13 May to 18 May and second week of June to the second week of July, he went abroad and he did tamper with the evidence. I will justify this.
He said there were “contemporaneous official records” which reflected this.
He also sought to place before the bench some documents in a sealed cover, which was objected to by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who was representing Karti.
Sibal also questioned the way in which CBI was seeking to place on record certain documents in a sealed cover, after Mehta referred to legal provisions and said these empowered the probe agency to share the case diary with the court without sharing them with the accused.
CBI: “Good, Cogent” Reasons for Issuing LoC Against Krati
Meanwhile, Mehta told the apex court that he would seek instructions on whether the division bench of the Madras High Court be asked to decide the main matter pending there.
The court posted the matter for further hearing on 9 October.
CBI had last month told the apex court that Karti was prevented from travelling abroad as he was allegedly closing several of his foreign bank accounts.
The CBI's contention was strongly refuted by Karti's counsel.
The top court is hearing CBI's appeal challenging Madras High Court order staying the government's LOC against Karti in the alleged graft case.
On September 1, the CBI had told the top court that there were "good, cogent" reasons for issuing the LOC against Karti. On August 18, the court had asked Karti to appear before the investigating officer at the CBI headquarters here for questioning in the case. The FIR was registered on May 15 before the special CBI judge here and the registration of the case was followed by searches at the residences and offices of Karti and his friends the very next day.
Karti Moves Supreme Court
In a five-page submission to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Karti said he has challenged the agency's summons in the apex court.
The submission, sent to the CBI through his lawyer Arun Natarajan, asked the agency not to insist on his appearance in the matter.
"My client has filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court challenging the action of the CBI in issuing summons to my client in the charge sheet in RC no 22(a)/2011-DLI," it said.
In the communication, the lawyer said in connection with the matter of Aircel Maxis and INX media, senior Congress leader P Chidambaram had filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court on September 29.
Karti and his father were questioned by the agency on November 19 and December 6, 2014, respectively, it said.
“The CBI and other investigative wings under the control of the present Union government, from time to time, issue malicious press releases or take coercive action driven by political vendetta in order to blatantly sensationalise and publicise this campaign against my client and his family with the intent to malign their reputation,” it said.
The lawyer said all proceedings connected with the matter had been terminated. Since all the accused in the case had been discharged, the CBI should not have issued its notice.
Natarajan said this "malicious campaign" against Karti and his family was an "orchestrated attempt to malign his reputation and (that) of his father", who, it added, was a prominent leader of the largest opposition party.
P Chidambaram, in a statement in 2014, had dismissed the allegations against him saying the FIPB clearance was granted in due course.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)