After the Supreme Court, for the second time in a row, refused to grant interim protection against the possible arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the anti-money laundering law, Karti Chidambaram rushed to the Delhi High Court for relief on Thursday.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra granted Mr. Karti liberty to approach the High Court in the course of the day after apprehensions were raised of his arrest.
The Supreme Court asked the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court to post Mr. Karti’s case on March 9 before an appropriate Bench. The Supreme Court said the High Court would deal with the plea for interim relief in accordance with law.
The high-voltage hearing saw the Chief Justice take strong exception to a remark by Mr. Karti’s lawyer and senior advocate Kapil Sibal that Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta was “day in and day out dictating orders to the court on what to say and not to say.”
“We are aware of our responsibilities, Mr. Sibal. Nobody can dictate orders to us. I take exception to what you said,” Chief Justice Misra addressed the lawyer, who apologised.
‘Abuse of jurisdiction’
Mr. Mehta, who represents the CBI and the ED in the case, said Mr. Karti’s petition for interim protection was an abuse of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in order to get anticipatory bail. The ASG submitted that the petition filed by Mr. Karti for protection of fundamental rights was merely an “attempt to get anticipatory bail.”
The law officer said the ED had evidence based on a “credible investigation showing serious money trail.” Mr. Karti is presently under CBI remand in the INX FIPB approval case. The ED is also conducting investigations of money laundering in the case. Mr. Sibal and senior advocate A.M. Singhvi mooted the possibility of the ED even trying to arrest Mr. Karti the moment he steps out from the courtroom in the CBI case. “What do you have to say on that? They say he will get arrested,” Chief Justice Misra asked Mr. Mehta.
“The petitioner himself says he is not an ‘ordinary criminal’. To my knowledge, an ‘ordinary criminal’ would seek anticipatory bail in case of an arrest,” Mr. Mehta replied.
Mr. Mehta asked the court to refrain from entertaining Mr. Karti’s plea for interim protection.
“If you entertain this plea, there will be 50 other PMLA accused who will come here saying their constitutional rights were violated and they want interim protection... What would you do then? What message are you sending if you begin to consider this as a special case?” the law officer asked the Bench.
At this point, Mr. Sibal asked the court’s permission to withdraw the petition.
