P Chidambaram's role in clearance to Maxis deal under lens: CBI
NEW DELHI: The CBI informed the Supreme Court on Monday that it was investigating former finance minister P Chidambaram's role in the alleged illegality of permitting Malaysian firm Maxis to acquire 100 per cent stake in Aircel directly and indirectly through FDI in 2006.
This submission was made by additional solicitor general Tushar Mehta in response to BJP member Subramanian Swamy, who has moved the SC seeking a probe into Chidambaram's alleged role in illegally permitting Maxis to acquire 100 per cent stake in Aircel. It has been claimed that this was done without following the procedure of sending the FDI proposal to the cabinet committee on economic affairs despite the total worth of the deal being more than Rs 600 crore.
Mehta clarified that the CBI had stated this in response to Swamy's letter to the agency last month. The ASG also submitted the Enforcement Directorate's probe status report in a sealed envelope.
On February 10, a bench headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar had said, "Issuing notice on your petition is no big deal. We can issue notice to the smallest and the biggest or the highest. But we do so only when we are satisfied that there is at least some prima facie proof of involvement. We must be reasonably sure about his role before issuing him notice." Swamy had exuded confidence that he would produce proof.
On Monday, a bench of Justices Khehar and DY Chandrachud was inclined to adjourn hearing on Swamy's petition following attorney general Mukul Rohatgi's request expressing his inability to attend the proceedings. But Swamy got the hearing going by informing the bench that the CBI had told him that it was inves tigating the charges levelled by him against Chidambaram.
When ASG Mehta, appearing for the CBI, said the investigation would take time, Swamy suggested that the agency be directed to file periodic probe status reports before the court. But the CJI said it would not be advisable to keep posting the matter again and again for receiving status reports.
"How long would you take to complete the probe?" the bench asked. It inquired from the CBI whether two weeks would be sufficient. Mehta said, "What we are saying is that the investigation is underway."
The bench said, "Tell us by when the investigation would be completed." Mehta said he would be in a better position to apprise the court about the time needed to complete the investigation by the first week of May. The bench posted the case for hearing on May 2.
This submission was made by additional solicitor general Tushar Mehta in response to BJP member Subramanian Swamy, who has moved the SC seeking a probe into Chidambaram's alleged role in illegally permitting Maxis to acquire 100 per cent stake in Aircel. It has been claimed that this was done without following the procedure of sending the FDI proposal to the cabinet committee on economic affairs despite the total worth of the deal being more than Rs 600 crore.
Mehta clarified that the CBI had stated this in response to Swamy's letter to the agency last month. The ASG also submitted the Enforcement Directorate's probe status report in a sealed envelope.
On February 10, a bench headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar had said, "Issuing notice on your petition is no big deal. We can issue notice to the smallest and the biggest or the highest. But we do so only when we are satisfied that there is at least some prima facie proof of involvement. We must be reasonably sure about his role before issuing him notice." Swamy had exuded confidence that he would produce proof.
On Monday, a bench of Justices Khehar and DY Chandrachud was inclined to adjourn hearing on Swamy's petition following attorney general Mukul Rohatgi's request expressing his inability to attend the proceedings. But Swamy got the hearing going by informing the bench that the CBI had told him that it was inves tigating the charges levelled by him against Chidambaram.
When ASG Mehta, appearing for the CBI, said the investigation would take time, Swamy suggested that the agency be directed to file periodic probe status reports before the court. But the CJI said it would not be advisable to keep posting the matter again and again for receiving status reports.
"How long would you take to complete the probe?" the bench asked. It inquired from the CBI whether two weeks would be sufficient. Mehta said, "What we are saying is that the investigation is underway."
The bench said, "Tell us by when the investigation would be completed." Mehta said he would be in a better position to apprise the court about the time needed to complete the investigation by the first week of May. The bench posted the case for hearing on May 2.
