Chidambaram approached the High Court to challenge the trial court's order, which had taken cognizance of the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) complaint against him and his son, Karti Chidambaram, in the Aircel-Maxis case.
Senior Advocate N. Hariharan, representing the former Union Minister, contended that the cognizance could not have been taken without the required sanction for prosecution.
Advocates Arshdeep Singh and Akshat Gupta assisted Hariharan in the matter, while Advocate Zoheb Hossain appeared on behalf of the ED.
The case involves alleged irregularities in the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) approvals for the Aircel-Maxis deal, which occurred during Chidambaram's tenure as Union Finance Minister.
The prosecution alleges that Chidambaram, during his tenure as Union Finance Minister when the ₹3,500 crore Aircel-Maxis deal was approved, and his son Karti, received kickbacks to facilitate the FIPB clearance for the deal.
Both the CBI and the ED filed their charge sheets and complaints in the case in July 2018. Notably, the Supreme Court recently ruled that the ED is also required to obtain sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to prosecute public servants under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
"Considering the object of Section 197(1) of the CrPC, its applicability cannot be excluded unless there is any provision in the PMLA which is inconsistent with Section 197(1). No such provision has been pointed out to us. Therefore, we hold that the provisions of Section 197(1) of CrPC are applicable to a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA," the Court said.
