Karti Chidambaram will move the Delhi High Court seeking relief against the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the INX media case..The petition filed by Chidambaram came up for hearing before a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra and comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud..An eventful hearing, which went on for more than one hour, saw heated arguments between the counsel appearing for both the parties..Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the ED, submitted that neither was there any mala fide intention behind the summons, nor was there any political vendetta involved..Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Karti Chidambaram, argued that his client cannot be arrested based on an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR), an internal document that was not shown to him..Keeping in mind Sibal’s submissions, Chief Justice Misra asked Mehta as to whether or not an arrest can be made in this case..Mehta replied in the affirmative, adding that an investigation is in progress based on the “serious” money trail, which is emerging..However, Misra J suggested that in such cases, only issue of summons was possible..Mehta submitted that even in the absence of a predicated offence, an arrest can be made based on the material available in the ECIR. He also submitted that they can also summon, seize and make attachments. He further contended that the ECIR is just a starting point, and thereafter, a complaint ultimately goes before the competent forum..Justice Khanwilkar then asked Mehta whether there was any provision under which the accused can get a copy of the ECIR..Mehta submitted that there is no such provision, and he was only showing his bona fide and was not indulging in witch-hunting..At this point, Sibal reiterated that there was no FIR or complaint, and therefore, an arrest cannot be made..This sparked a volley of objections by both the parties..Mehta submitted that the Court should examine and quash the proceedings if it feels there is a need to do so. Sibal, on the other hand, pleaded for one week’s protection for his client..In response, Mehta said that the petitioner was attempting to use the jurisdiction of the Court to obtain anticipatory bail..Khanwilkar J asked Sibal whether he would want to withdraw the petition, to which the Senior Advocate replied positively. The Bench, thus, asked that the petition be withdrawn and that the petitioner moves the Delhi High Court immediately..The bench then proceeded to observe that it can ask the High Court to adjudicate the matter.Mehta, however, contended that it would be unfair for the Supreme Court to direct the High Court to do something. He said that it would be assumed that the High Court does not know its responsibility..Sibal objected to this submission, and said that Mehta cannot dictate what the Supreme Court can and cannot do..DY Chandrachud J. observed,.“You can not force them to argue if they want to withdraw.”.Mehta replied by saying that he has no objection if they want to willfully withdraw the petition..The Bench, after hearing the arguments, proceeded to order that Chidambaram may move the Delhi High Court and make his representation before that Court. It stated,.“We request the Chief Justice of the High Court to allocate a bench to hear the matter tomorrow.”
Karti Chidambaram will move the Delhi High Court seeking relief against the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the INX media case..The petition filed by Chidambaram came up for hearing before a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra and comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud..An eventful hearing, which went on for more than one hour, saw heated arguments between the counsel appearing for both the parties..Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the ED, submitted that neither was there any mala fide intention behind the summons, nor was there any political vendetta involved..Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Karti Chidambaram, argued that his client cannot be arrested based on an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR), an internal document that was not shown to him..Keeping in mind Sibal’s submissions, Chief Justice Misra asked Mehta as to whether or not an arrest can be made in this case..Mehta replied in the affirmative, adding that an investigation is in progress based on the “serious” money trail, which is emerging..However, Misra J suggested that in such cases, only issue of summons was possible..Mehta submitted that even in the absence of a predicated offence, an arrest can be made based on the material available in the ECIR. He also submitted that they can also summon, seize and make attachments. He further contended that the ECIR is just a starting point, and thereafter, a complaint ultimately goes before the competent forum..Justice Khanwilkar then asked Mehta whether there was any provision under which the accused can get a copy of the ECIR..Mehta submitted that there is no such provision, and he was only showing his bona fide and was not indulging in witch-hunting..At this point, Sibal reiterated that there was no FIR or complaint, and therefore, an arrest cannot be made..This sparked a volley of objections by both the parties..Mehta submitted that the Court should examine and quash the proceedings if it feels there is a need to do so. Sibal, on the other hand, pleaded for one week’s protection for his client..In response, Mehta said that the petitioner was attempting to use the jurisdiction of the Court to obtain anticipatory bail..Khanwilkar J asked Sibal whether he would want to withdraw the petition, to which the Senior Advocate replied positively. The Bench, thus, asked that the petition be withdrawn and that the petitioner moves the Delhi High Court immediately..The bench then proceeded to observe that it can ask the High Court to adjudicate the matter.Mehta, however, contended that it would be unfair for the Supreme Court to direct the High Court to do something. He said that it would be assumed that the High Court does not know its responsibility..Sibal objected to this submission, and said that Mehta cannot dictate what the Supreme Court can and cannot do..DY Chandrachud J. observed,.“You can not force them to argue if they want to withdraw.”.Mehta replied by saying that he has no objection if they want to willfully withdraw the petition..The Bench, after hearing the arguments, proceeded to order that Chidambaram may move the Delhi High Court and make his representation before that Court. It stated,.“We request the Chief Justice of the High Court to allocate a bench to hear the matter tomorrow.”
