The Supreme Court on Monday extended its interim protection to former Union Finance Minister P. Chidambaram from arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for another day even as it refused to entertain his plea for liberty from the CBI custody in the INX Media case.
A Bench of Justices R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna said Mr. Chidambaram’s appeal for anticipatory bail in the CBI case was “infructuous”. The senior Congress leader had been under remand for the past five days after his arrest on August 21. The Bench said he could apply for regular bail in the court concerned.
Hours after the Supreme Court declined his appeal against the CBI, the Special Court remanded him to further custody till August 30.
But the apex court Bench heard senior advocate Kapil Sibal, for Mr. Chidambaram, argue the whole day a separate appeal filed for anticipatory bail in the case lodged by the ED, which is investigating the money laundering angle.
The apex court has scheduled the counter-arguments of the ED, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for noon on August 27.
“One-way street”
Mr. Sibal argued that the conduct of the case has been like a “one-way street” where the investigating agencies flashed documents at the courts to deprive a person of his personal liberty.
“One of the questions asked to him [Chidambaram] was whether he had a Twitter account? Is this how an investigation goes” Mr. Sibal asked the Bench.
He said the investigating agencies did not confront Mr. Chidambaram with any of the documents and records which they showed to convince the Delhi High Court to deprive him anticipatory bail in an order on August 20.
“If you probe and find out anything, first put it before the person. Let him give an explanation... What is happening in this case is a one-way street,” Mr. Sibal said.
He submitted that Mr. Chidambaram was questioned three times by the ED on December 19, January 1 and January 21 last.
“He was not summoned before or thereafter. If documents were available, why was he not confronted with them during any of these three occasions?Why did they spring a surprise in the Delhi High Court by passing them on to the judge in sealed covers. This is nothing but a media trial,” he said.
Mr. Sibal stated that certain paragraphs in the High Court verdict was a verbatim reproduction of the contents of a note handed over by the probe agencies to the judge. There was no application of mind by the judge before denying a man bail.
Mr. Mehta denied the existence of such a note. He said the case diary was handed to the judge for his perusal.
Mr. Sibal continued that an arrest spelt “great ignominy, humiliation, distress” to a man. “The moment you arrest someone, you make believe that the man is guilty. You destroy a man… Cases like this have a money trail or documents, everything is traceable… So, what is the need for police custody. What are you trying to find out” he asked.
Mr. Sibal pooh-poohed claims by the investigating agencies that Mr. Chidambaram would tamper with the case. “They say I [Chidambaram] will tamper with the case... I must be having long arms to do that,” he said.
“Yes, yes. That's what it shows,” Mr. Mehta countered from his seat in the front row on the other side.
“You have long arms, very long arms. That is why I [Chidambaram] am here and you are there,” Mr. Sibal replied.
