Delhi HC orders day-to-day hearing on ED plea challenging anticipatory bail to P Chidambaram, son in Aircel-Maxis case

Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain, representing the probe agencies, urged the court to take up the three petitions on a day-to-day basis as they involve an important question of law.

He urged that the three matters be heard together as the FIR and foundation of the cases were common.

However, senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing the Chidambarams, said their case was not connected with Maran’s and they be heard separately.

The court said this issue will be considered when it hears the matter.

Before Chidambaram and his son were accused in the Aircel-Maxis case, a special court on 2 February, 2017, discharged DMK leader Dayanidhi Maran, his brother Kalanithi Maran, and others.

The ED and the CBI later filed supplementary charge sheets naming the Chidambarams in the alleged scam.

The Chidambarams were granted anticipatory on 5 September, 2019.

Custodial interrogation is required

The ED said the trial court failed to appreciate that custodial interrogation of the accused was required and it is finding the offence was not grave enough was completely perverse and untenable in law.

The ED counsel referred to the trial court’s order that the allegations against Chidambarams were not of grave magnitude as the alleged money laundered is about ₹1.13 crore which is a paltry amount compared to allegations against Dayanidhi Maran and others, which the bribe amount was claimed to stand at ₹749 crore but he (Dayanidhi) was not arrested.

He contended that in the Aircel-Maxis case, the approval of the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) was sought for ₹3,500 crore which was beyond the jurisdiction of the finance minister, still, it was approved by Chidambaram.

The trial court had also granted anticipatory bail to the father-son duo in the Aircel-Maxis case filed by the CBI.

The ED, in its plea, has contended that the pre-arrest bail in a case of economic offence was unwarranted and urged the high court to set aside the trial court’s order granting the relief to the Chidambarams and cancel their anticipatory bail.

Also read: CID unearths benami purchases linked to ex-minister P Narayana

CBI probing FIBP approval to foreign firm

The CBI is probing how Chidambaram, being the finance minister in 2006, granted FIPB approval to a foreign firm, when only the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) was empowered to do it.

The ED is probing a money laundering case in the Aircel-Maxis matter.

The ED has also challenged the special court’s order discharging the Maran brothers and others in the Aircel-Maxis money laundering case.

Similarly, the CBI has also challenged the special court’s discharge order, saying there was overwhelming evidence against Marans.

In 2006, Maxis Berhad, owned by a Malaysian citizen of Sri Lankan Tamil descent, Ananda Krishnan, had taken over Aircel founded by entrepreneur C Sivasankaran by acquiring a 74 percent stake.

The Aircel-Maxis deal had come under the scanner in 2011 when Sivasankaran lodged a complaint with the CBI alleging he was pressured to sell his stake to Maxis.

Sivasankaran also claimed former union minister Dayanidhi and his industrialist brother Kalanithi received kickbacks in the form of Maxis group’s investments in the Sun TV Network, which is owned by the Maran family.

BJP leader Subramanian Swamy later alleged that a company controlled by Karti Chidambaram had in 2006 received a 5 percent stake in Aircel in return for getting Maxis to pay ₹40 billion for 74 percent shares of Aircel.

Swamy claimed Chidambaram withheld FIPB clearance for the deal until his son received the 5 per cent share in Sivasankaran’s company.

(Disclaimer: The headline, subheads, and intro of this report along with the photos may have been reworked by South First. The rest of the content is from a syndicated feed, and has been edited for style.)