12 Grounds On Which P Chidambaram Seeks Bail From SC In INX Media Case [Read Petition]

Former Union Finance Minister P Chidambaram on Wednesday filed a special leave petition against the judgment of the Delhi High Court that refused pre-arrest bail to him in the INX case.

What is the INX-media case about?

In the INX Media case, the CBI had registered an FIR on May 15, 2017 alleging irregularities in the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance granted to the media group for receiving overseas funds of Rs 305 crore in 2007 during Chidambaram's tenure as finance minister. Thereafter, the ED had in 2018 lodged the money laundering case in this regard.

ED contended that the companies in which money was transferred are directly or indirectly controlled by Chidambaram's son, Karti, and they have a reason to believe that the FIPB approval was granted to INX Media on his son's intervention.

CBI recorded an FIR on May 15 2017 against four companies, Karti Chidambaram (Chidambaram's son) and 'unknown officials of the Ministry of Finance'. The provisions mentioned were Section 120-B r/w Section 420 IPC and Sections 8, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 

Grounds in bail plea

The special leave petition filed against the August 20 judgment of the Delhi HC raises following grounds :

1. The FIPB granted approval to INX media for making Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) equivalent to 46.126 % of the issued equity capital in a TV channel. The then existing policy allowed FDI up to 74% of equity. So there was nothing illegal in the FDI approval.
2. Chidmabaram, as the Finance Minister, did not play any role in the FDI approval for INX. The approval was granted by FIPB consisting of 6 Secretaries to the Government of India and was chaired by the Secretary, Economic Affairs.
3. The proposal approved by the FIBP unanimously was placed before the Chidambaram, who was the then Finance Minister. During May 2007, he granted approval to FIPB proposal in 'ordinary course of business'.
4. The FIR registered almost 10 years later, based on 'oral source information', is politically motivated with the intention to silence Chidambaram, who is a vocal critic of the government.
5. The FIR is based on an allegation that INX media had paid Rs.10 lakhs payment to a company associated with Karti Chidambaram. This was allegedly for regularizing a downstream investment made by INC without prior approval. Chidambaram claims that this payment was for a consultancy work done by the company. He also says that Karti was not a shareholder or director of that company.
6. The FIR is based on the Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, which was repealed and re-enacted in 2018. Hence, this section cannot be used to prosecute the petitioner.
7. The FIR does not name Chidambaram. There is no allegation in the FIR that he has received any illegal gratification in the INX transaction.
8. The Delhi HC made references to financial transactions between various entities to enter a finding that it was a "classic case of money laundering".  Disputing these observations, the SLP states that these transactions are not relevant as these entities have no connection with INX. These transactions were not mentioned during the stage of oral hearings before the bench. They were mentioned only in a note submitted by the respondent after the conclusion of the arguments, and the observations in Paragraph 12 to 20 of the judgment are "a cut and paste of the note without a shred of evidence produced by the Respondent to show that these transactions had anything to do with INX Media or the approvals had obtained in 2007-08". The petitioner had no notice of these grounds raised by the respondents.
9. The investigation in the matter is complete and draft charge-sheet has been prepared, as admitted by the CBI. Therefore, the custodial interrogation is not necessary. 
10. The case is based on documentary evidences, which are in the custody of the government. So there is no threat of petitioner tampering with evidence. 
11. Other accused in the case, including Karti Chidambaram, have been granted bail. While granting bail to Karti, Justice Garg of Delhi HC had found that FIPB members had stated that they did not know him and no one including Karti had attempted to influence them. The judgment of Mr. Justice Garg was affirmed by the Supreme Court on August 3, 2018.
12. The antecedents of the Petitioner are impeccable. He has never been an accused of any offence. He is a sitting Member of the Rajya Sabha. There is no possibility of his fleeing from justice.

While dismissing the application for anticipatory bail, Justice Sunil Gaur of Delhi HC had observed that this was a "classic case of money laundering". Facts of the case prima facie reveal that the petitioner is the king pin or the key conspirator, said the Court.

The Court cited the gravity of the offence and evasive replies given by Chidambaram to the questions put to him while he was under interim protection from arrest as the "twin factors to deny pre-arrest bail".

"Simply because petitioner is a sitting member of Parliament., would not justify grant of pre-arrest bail to petitioner in this sensitive case. Offenders must be exposed, no matter what their status is. Petitioner is a member of legal fraternity too But this by itself does not and justice concession of pre-arrest bail to him", observed Justice Gaur in the judgment.

Click here to download petition

Read Petition