Copy-Paste Mishap? The Delhi HC’s peculiar reference to the Rohit Tandon case while deciding P Chidambaram’s bail

A day after the Supreme Court lambasted the Enforcement Directorate for its “copy-paste” job while drafting the appeal against the grant of bail to Congress leader DK Shivakumar, another such mishap has surfaced, this time though, from the Bench.The Delhi High Court on Friday denied bail to former Union Minister P Chidambaram in the INX Media money laundering case. The judgment, which was uploaded late Saturday evening, has some peculiar similarities with the orders passed by the Delhi High Court as well as the Supreme Court in Rohit Tandon’s bail plea..In its 41-page judgment, the Delhi High Court had concluded that the triple test for bail was satisfied in the present case. However, it rejected bail on the basis of the gravity of the economic offence at hand..“...prima facie, allegations are serious in nature and the petitioner has played active and key role in the present case. It cannot be disputed that entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book, as such offences affects the very fabric of democratic governance and probity in public life. No doubt, bail is right and Jail is exception, but, if bail is granted in such case, a wrong message goes to the public at large. .64. Therefore, in view of above facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.”.Keeping aside the fact that the judgment relies heavily on the counter affidavit filed by the Enforcement Directorate in the case, it also contains unusual references to the orders passed by the Delhi High Court as well as the Supreme Court in Rohit Tandon’s bail plea..The P Chidambaram judgment, passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, begins with a brief narration of the facts of the INX Media case. Till paragraph 11, the judgment records the submissions made by the two counsel appearing for Chidambaram – Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi. After a few more paragraphs, the judgment records the submissions made by Solicitor General of India, Senior Advocate Tushar Mehta..From paragraph 32 onwards, the judgment begins to analyse the case at hand and goes on to deal with the 2013 Amendment to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002..The Court thus quotes from the High Court’s order in Rohit Tandon V. Enforcement Directorate to take the discussion further. However, in paragraphs 35 & 36, it accidentally goes on to reproduce the facts of the Rohit Tandon case as recorded in paragraph 16 & 18 of the order passed in the case in May 2017..This verbatim reproduction is not within quotation marks (which would have denoted that it is quoting from High Court judgment in Rohit Tandon case); rather it appears in the order as the High Court’s own observations in the Chidambaram case..The common content in the two order reads,.“35. It is alleged that during the period from 15.11.2016 to 19.11.2016 huge cash to the tune of Rs. 31.75 crores was deposited in eight bank accounts in Kotak Mahindra Bank in the accounts of “group of companies”. It gives details of demand draft issued from 15.11.2016 to 19.11.2016 from eight bank accounts in the name of Sunil Kumar, Dinesh Kumar, Abhilasha Dubey, Madan Kumar, Madan Saini, Satya Narain Dagdi and Seema Bai on various dates. Most of the Demand Drafts issued have since been recovered..36. The statements recorded during investigation have evidentiary value under Section 50 PMLA. Prima facie, the version given by them is in consonance with the prosecution case. The prosecution has further relied upon call data records, CCTV footage, Account Trend Analysis..”.While it is common to refer to the facts of a case being relied upon, the High Court judgment then goes on to verbatim borrow the conclusion with respect to the culpability of Rohit Tandon, as recorded by the Supreme Court in its order..Paragraph 40 of the P Chidambaram order and a part of Paragraph 23 of the Supreme Court order reads as follows:.“…The stated activity allegedly indulged into by the accused named in the commission of predicate offence is replete with mens rea. In that, the concealment, possession, acquisition or use of the property by projecting or claiming it as untainted property and converting the same by bank drafts, would certainly come within the sweep of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. That would come within the meaning of Section 3 and punishable under Section 4 of the Act.”.P Chidambaram Order – HC.On Friday, the Supreme Court had called Enforcement Directorate’s blatant copy-paste job a “comedy of errors” and dismissed the appeal against the grant of bail to DK Shivakumar..How the Supreme Court perceives this editing mishap from the High Court Bench will be interesting to watch..[Read Judgments]