Aircel-Maxis Case: Delhi HC Stays Trial Court Proceedings Against Chidambaram

Congress leader P. Chidambaram

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday temporarily halted trial court proceedings against senior Congress leader P. Chidambaram in the Aircel-Maxis case, which was filed by the Enforcement Directorate.

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri also issued a notice to the ED, seeking its response to Chidambaram’s petition challenging the trial court’s cognisance of the chargesheet against him and his son Karti in the money laundering case.

“Notice issued. Till the next date of hearing, the proceedings against the petitioner shall remain stayed. List on January 22,” Justice Ohri stated, adding that a detailed order would be issued later.

Chidambaram’s legal team, led by senior advocate N. Hariharan, argued that the trial court erred in taking cognisance of the chargesheet without obtaining the mandatory sanction for prosecuting Chidambaram under Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

They contended that the alleged offences occurred while Chidambaram was a public servant, requiring prior government approval for prosecution.

The ED, however, countered that no such sanction was necessary in this case. The agency argued that the allegations pertain to actions unrelated to Chidambaram’s official duties as Union finance minister when the offence was allegedly committed.

The case stems from purported irregularities in granting Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) approval for the Aircel-Maxis deal in 2006, during Chidambaram’s tenure as finance minister. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the ED have alleged that Chidambaram exceeded his authority in approving the deal, benefiting certain individuals and receiving kickbacks.

On November 27, 2021, the trial court took cognisance of the chargesheets filed by the CBI and ED and summoned Chidambaram and other accused. The trial court also determined there was sufficient evidence to proceed against Chidambaram under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

In his plea, Chidambaram argued that the prosecution’s failure to obtain sanction under Section 197(1) CrPC rendered the trial court’s cognisance of the chargesheet invalid. “The protection under Section 197(1) extends to the petitioner.

The special judge erred in taking cognisance of the offence without prior sanction,” his petition stated, urging the High Court to quash the trial court’s order.

The case remains under judicial review, with the High Court set to hear further arguments on January 22. The temporary stay provides interim relief to Chidambaram while questions surrounding the procedural validity of the charges loom large.