The Central Bureau of Investigation has filed a FIR against, former finance minister P Chidambaram’s son, Karti Chidambaram. He is charged with the allegations of receiving a payoff for facilitating foreign investment clearance for INX Media (now know as 9X media) in 2008, criminal conspiracy, cheating and corruption. M/s INX Media (P) Ltd., represented by its then directors Indrani Mukherjea and Pritam Mukherjea alias Peter Mukherjea; Chess Management Services (represented through its director Mr. Karti Chidambaram); Advantage Strategic Consultancy (P) Ltd., represented through its director Padma Vishwanathan and unknown Finance Ministry officials are also accused of being involved in the conspiracy.
Recently Karti had summoned a petition to the High Court for putting down a “look out circular” issued against him under the Passport Act over a corruption case filed by the CBI. In the petition, it read that he had cooperated with the CBI, had answered all the related questions and there was no absolute cause of action for the issuance of the LOC.
The Supreme Court on Monday stayed a Madras High Court order of August 10freezing the implementation of a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued by the Bureau of Immigration against Karti Chidambaram and urged him to “cooperate and participate” in a corruption case involving kickbacks paid by INX Media for obtaining clearance from the Foreign Investment Promotion Board.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India J.S. Khehar stressed on the point that the Karti has to participate in the investigation by appearing before the probe officers for questioning. He questioned that “Our business is only one. You must go for the investigation. How will it be if people of this country do not respond to investigations against them?” The court said that it was up to Karti to decide whether he wanted to wait for the Madras HC’s decision on his pending petition for quashing of the investigation. But the court cleared that in any which case, Karti will not be allowed to leave the country till he participates in the investigation.
Senior advocate Gopal Subramanium representing Karti, plead that his client had already booked his tickets for the U.K. on August 16. Responding to the plea Justice Khehar replied, “We have had the bitter experience of allowing people to go abroad and they never come back… You (Karti) first show us your bonafide by going to the investigating officer.”
Subramaniam, however, debated that his client came to know the LOC issued against him incidentally only after a month. To this, the court gave the details that the FIR against Karti was registered on May 15. He was issued a notice on June 15 to appear before the investigating officer on June 29 and the CBI, on the very following day on June 16, had issued the LOC.
The Madras HC had found the issuance of the LOC on the very next day after the notice was issued on June 15 as “prima facie unwarranted”, Subramanium argued. However, the bench acknowledged the submission made by Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for CBI, who said the intent and language of the LOC was not to detain or arrest Mr. Karti.
Arguing on this Subramanium strongly interjected that “The question you have to consider here is when do you really interfere with the right of a citizen to travel… It is only when somebody is a fugitive. My client was sitting in the same courtroom as the investigating officer during the case hearing. He has his father here. He has a daughter. His family is here.” To this, “We are not on the issue whether he is guilty or not. We are on a very small issue. Have you participated and co-operated with the investigating officer? The answer is ‘no’,” CJI Khehar responded.
The HC had also stayed the LOCs issued against C.B.N. Reddy, Ravi Viswanathan, Mohanan Rajesh and S. Bhaskararaman.