Here’s why the Madras HC allowed Karti Chidambaram’s plea to travel abroad

The Madras High Court today conditionally allowed a prayer made by Karti Chidambaram seeking permission to travel abroad for the promotion of business activities allied to his company Totus Tennis Ltd..In July 2017, the CBI had issued a Lookout Circular (LOC) against Karti Chidambaram amidst investigation in the INX Media money laundering case. The CBI has alleged that Karti Chidambaram aided INX Media in obtaining Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) approvals by exercising illegal influence between 2007 and 2008, during which time his father, P Chidambaram was the Union Finance Minister..An Enforcement Case Information Report lodged against INX Media in May 2017 also has Karti’s name among the accused. A notice had been served upon Karti on July 15, 2017 asking him to appear before the authorities on July 29. The LOC in question was issued a day later on July 16, 2017. The same had prevented Karti from leaving the country pending the investigation by the CBI..Therefore, Karti preferred a miscellaneous petition to permit his travel abroad, particularly in furtherance of business activities concerning his sports management company, Totus Tennis. Whereas the plea had been made back in December 2017 before the Supreme Court, all matters pertaining to the CBI inquiry had been remanded back to the Madras High Court in January this year..The First Bench of Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Abdul Quddhose today conditionally allowed Karti’s prayer in this interim petition. Hearing in this matter had concluded last Monday. Senior Counsel Gopal Subramaniam appeared for the petitioner, whereas ASG G Rajagopalan made submissions for the CBI..While passing the order today, the Court observed that, given the majority view in Maneka Gandhi’s case, a person cannot be denied his right to travel abroad for business purposes on the basis of an LOC, only on vague allegations of evidence tampering..The Court also observed that, prima facie it appeared that the LOC was prematurely issued. The Court noted that an LOC is issued in cases of cognisable offences or violation of penal laws where the accused is deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in trial court despite non-bailable warrants and other coercive measures and there is a likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest. The judgement of the Delhi High Court laying down this guideline has also been acknowledged by the Ministry of Home Affairs, which issued a Memo to this effect in October 2010..In this context, the Court made note that Karti had appeared before CBI for interrogation, as ordered by the Supreme Court in August 2017. He had also been permitted to go abroad in relation to his daughter’s college admission previously. Therefore, the LOC does not appear to conform with the Delhi High Court judgement or MHA’s memo given that the petitioner had not made any deliberate attempt to avoid arrest, at least at the time when the LOC was issued..The Court also noted that Karti had not questioned the FIR itself. The CBI can, therefore, carry on the investigation. The Court remarked that the CBI had been unable to show how Karti’s absence for a few days would scuttle the investigation. Therefore, the Court held that there is no impediment to allowing the petitioner to travel abroad..However, permission for the same was granted subject to certain conditions including, submission of travel itinerary to the CBI in advance. The petitioner also has to give an undertaking that he would appear before the CBI on the specified dates for investigation. He has been directed not to close bank accounts and further that the CBI be intimated if there is any closure of assets. Karti has also been directed to return to the country by February 28..The Court made it clear that its observations regarding the LOC were only prima facie observations and further that the question of the validity of the LOC itself will be considered when the Court takes up the case for hearing next on March 12, 2018.