Madras HC grants interim stay on LOC against Karthi Chidambaram

The Madras High Court today passed orders to stay Lookout Circulars (LOCs) issued by the CBI against Karthi Chidambaram and four others in connection with the INX media case in which they have been implicated. The interim order was passed by Justice M Duraiswamy..Senior counsels Gopal Subramanium, Satish Parasaran and R Thiagarajan appeared on behalf of the petitioner, Karthi Chidambaram. Additional Solicitor General G Rajagopalan argued on behalf of the Centre..The CBI had alleged that the petitioner was involved in a corruption case pertaining to grant of Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) approval to INX Media and an FIR was lodged on June 15, 2017. LOCs were issued on June 16 and 18 and the same were challenged by the petitioners by invoking the writ jurisdiction of the Madras High Court..ASG Rajagopalan made arguments today contesting the territorial jurisdiction of the Madras High Court in entertaining a matter where an FIR had been filed in Delhi. It was also argued that the LOC was not directed at restraining the liberty of the concerned persons, but rather sought to ensure that the Petitioner were available to cooperate with the investigation..It was argued that the state had the competency to pass executive notifications, which falls within the purview of Article 13 of the Constitution, as required to ensure that there are no impediments to the investigative process..Karti Chidambaram pointed out that an LOC was issued against Chidambaram by the Ministry of Home Affairs on the request of the CBI on the day immediately following the FIR i.e July 16. It was the petitioner’s case this action was indicative of the malafide intent of the respondents, given that there was no substantial basis for such a hasty resort..It was argued that, present notification included, the respondents were executing nothing short of harassment and politically fuelled vendetta against the petitioner, Karti Chidambaram. An LOC dated August 18 issued in respect of the other four petitioners was also an extension of this vendetta..It was submitted that on receiving notice, the first petitioner responded on June 26, informing the authorities he would be present on the date marked out in the summons for appearance. At the time of such communication, he had been abroad. It was argued that this clearly showed that the petitioner had no intention of evading the investigative process. Considering the petitioner had his roots and his family in India, it was unlikely that he would abscond abroad..Further, the petitioner submitted that the reluctance on the part of the respondents to furnish a copy of the LOC was also questionable. The petitioner argued that he came to know of the LOC after it was broadcast through the media and that no copy of the same had been given at the time of its issue..The petitioners also made a reference to the CBI manual, emphasising that the LOC is not a routine action. In these circumstances, it was argued that the issue of the impugned LOCs amounted to violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution..The Court held that there was a prima facie case made out by the petitioners to stay the LOCs until the matter is disposed of. However, the order was passed subject to the condition that the petitioners cooperate with the respondents at the time of inquiry. Further, if petitioners intend to go abroad, due intimation was ordered to be given three days in advance to the investigating officer..The matter is to be taken up next on September 4, on which date the state is expected to file a counter..Read copy of Writ Petitions filed on behalf of Petitioners here..Read copy of Interim Order here:.Image taken from here.