BAIL DENIED TO P CHIDAMBARAM IN ED CASE IN INX SCAM

Overview

In recent order by the High Court bail plea of P,Chidambaram in INX scam has been denied
considering the precarious nature of the case. P Chidambaram, who served twice as finance
minister and also as a home minister in the previous Congress-led governments, was arrested
in a dramatic late-night swoop on August 21 by officers from the CBI. After being questioned
at the agency's headquarters for 14 days, he was transferred to the capital's Tihar jail under
judicial custody on September 5. Mr Chidambaram is facing claims he received bribes in
exchange for foreign investment clearances to a media company INX Media. The company's
co-founders Peter and Indrani Mukerjea are currently in jail in the case involving the murder
of Indrani's daughter Sheena Bora. Indrani Mukerjea has turned approver in the case against
the Chidambarams and the investigative agencies have based their case on her testimony.

Issue
The case pertains to a FIR filed by the CBI on noticing irregularities in the foreign investment
clearances given to INX media to the tune of Rs.305 crore by Chidambaram as the then
Finance Minister. Thereafter a case was registered by the ED. The triple test conducted that
included flight risk, witness and evidence tampering, was made out against him. The High
Court focussed mainly on the repercussions that’ll arise out of granting bail to him.
P.Chidambaram had misused the highest office for his personal gain and had acted against
the public interest thereby forging the tax payers of the country. The judgement was taken
considering the gravity of the offence i.e. there were serious economic offences against the
defendant that had to be dealt with stringent action.

The Court observed the following factors while denying bail plea

1. Shell companies abroad associated to the defedant’s son, Karti Chidambaram that
had transactions of crores in its name despite not performing any professional
services.
2. Generation of fake invoices by the companies controlled by Karti and layering of
money in bank accounts
3. Statement of witnesses that suggest that Chidambaram tried to win-over the
witnesses.
4. Statement of Indrani Mukerjea (she is an approver in the case)

5. Chidambaram is a flight risk and can influence witnesses and banks abroad.

6. Accused Chidambaram of destroying the logbook of North block which showed

Indrani and Peter Mukerjea met him in March, 2007.

The grounds on which Chidambaram bail plea was files is as follows:

1. The credibility of Indrani Mukherjea questioned since she is the prime suspect in
murder of Sheena Bora.
 2. Petitioner claimed to have never met Indrani Mukherjea
3.  Being a senior lawyer and public representative, he is not a flight risk
4.  Action against him is selective and political in nature.

The Court placed emphasis on the active and key role of Chidambaram in the case and
granting bail can have harmful effects on the society. The society is aggrieved if economic
offenders are not brought to book as it affects the fabric of democracy and probity of public
life. The court also shun light on the contrast in the investigation of ED and CBI. The ED’s
investigation was different, distinctive and independent than that of CBI probe and it
reflected the effect of economic offences on the society and its long-term implications. The
Zero Tolerance policy against corruption as practiced in this judgement thereby sets a strong
example for financial perpetrators. Over the years many scams have surfaced reflecting upon
the loopholes in the system that have been the major reasons for perpetrators to avoid
liability. Such a practise has been curbed by the Court in this judgment as it was the need of
the hour. Constant exploitation of the taxpayers and misappropriation of nation’s finances for
personal gain has till now contributed to poor economy of India. P. Chidambaram’s case
initially filed and investigated by CBI then digging deeper into the matter ED filed an
identical case with in-depth, distinctive and different material facts that have provided
sufficient prima facie evidence as against the petitioner. It was stated by the Court that
despite the fact that relief pleaded for through bail is a right but an exploitative move for the
public or against public interest. Even his constant affirmations that the said arrest by ED is a
malafide intention to harm his reputation is not being acknowledged

CONCLUSION
From recent developments in the case it is clear that P.Chidambaram won’t be receiving any
relief considering the gravity of the situation and Court is going to exercise strict and cogent
measures to curb corruption cases in the near future.