The Delhi High Court was set to hear a petition filed by Congress Member of Parliament Karti P. Chidambaram challenging a trial court order framing charges against him in connection with the Chinese visa scam case. The petition questioned the legal validity of the trial court’s decision to frame charges against him in the case. The matter was listed before a judge but the judge recused from hearing the petition, citing personal reasons, necessitating a fresh listing of the matter before a different bench of the High Court. This was the third judge before whom the matter was listed after two earlier judges had also recused from hearing it. The Court directed that, subject to the orders of the judge in charge of the criminal side, the case be listed for hearing on January 28 before another bench.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra appeared on behalf of Chidambaram and argued that the charges framed by the trial court were not based on any material evidence that would justify initiating a trial against him. According to his submissions before the Court, the framing of charges against Chidambaram was unwarranted and lacked any foundation in the material on record. Luthra contended that the trial court’s order effectively sought to rope Chidambaram into a case where no substantive allegations or evidentiary basis existed against him. He submitted that the matter was devoid of evidence linking Chidambaram to any cognizable offence and that the framing of charges was done without any judicial application of mind. These arguments formed the core of Chidambaram’s petition before the High Court challenging the trial court’s decision to allow the prosecution to proceed against him.
Chidambaram’s petition specifically contended that the trial court had failed to apply its judicial mind to the material and documents on record. It was argued on his behalf that the trial court had overlooked other documents, evidence, and witness statements that pointed to a lack of criminality on his part. The petition stated that by neglecting to consider these materials, the trial court had rendered the stage of framing charges a mere formality without substantive judicial evaluation. The petitioner also submitted that the trial court had incorrectly recorded an observation that Chidambaram had demanded or accepted a bribe of fifty lakh rupees. Despite this observation, Chidambaram maintained that there was no allegation in the charge sheet that he had demanded or accepted any gratification, and there was no material to substantiate such a claim.
The case in question relates to allegations concerning the issuance of visas to 263 Chinese nationals in the year 2011, during the period when P. Chidambaram, Karti P. Chidambaram’s father, was serving as the Union Home Minister. The Central Bureau of Investigation registered a scheduled offences case alleging that a bribe of fifty lakh rupees had been paid by a corporate entity, Talwandi Sabo Power Limited, which was a subsidiary of a larger corporate group engaged in establishing a power plant in Punjab, to facilitate approval for the re-use of project visas for Chinese experts engaged in the project. The project visas were a special category of visa introduced for the power and steel sectors, and guidelines governing their issuance were stated to have been issued with the approval of the then Home Minister.
The prosecution alleged that the guidelines governing the issuance of project visas did not contain any provision for the re-use of such visas, and any deviation from the established guidelines was permitted only in exceptional circumstances with the approval of the Union Home Secretary and Union Home Minister. It was alleged that the company involved in the power project was running behind schedule and faced potential financial penalties and interest obligations, which led to its need for additional project visas for Chinese professionals. It was further alleged that an individual, acting on behalf of the company, approached a close associate of Chidambaram seeking assistance in having the project visas re-used. The prosecution contended that, at the direction of the close associate, communications were sent to Chidambaram seeking such assistance.
According to the prosecution’s narrative, the close associate later demanded an illegal gratification of fifty lakh rupees for ensuring approval of the request for re-use of the project visas, and it was alleged that this amount was accepted by the company representative. It was further alleged that documentary evidence in the form of e-mails existed between the various accused and intermediaries, which substantiated the claim that approval for re-use of the project visas was granted in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy between the accused persons. The prosecution’s case asserted that the approval granted for the re-use of the project visas was part of a scheme hatched between multiple accused persons and unknown public servants and private individuals, and that the investigation was ongoing to uncover the full extent of the alleged conspiracy and the participants involved.
In the trial court’s order that was challenged before the High Court, charges were framed against Chidambaram along with seven other accused persons in the case. One individual named in the matter was discharged by the trial court, but Chidambaram was not among those discharged, prompting his petition before the High Court seeking to quash the framing of charges against him. The petition argued that there was no prima facie material to show even a reasonable suspicion, let alone a grave suspicion, that could warrant proceeding to trial against him.
The High Court’s proceedings revealed the complexities in the case, including the repeated recusals by judges from hearing Chidambaram’s petition. The bench before which the matter was listed expressed its inability to hear the case for personal reasons and directed that the matter be listed before another bench on the specified date. The repeated changes in judicial benches underscored the procedural progression of the case as it awaited hearing before the High Court. The Court’s direction ensured that the petition would be heard on the newly listed date by a different bench, in accordance with the orders of the judge in charge of the criminal side of the High Court.
Chidambaram’s petition sought to emphasize that the trial court’s order had effectively bypassed the essential judicial scrutiny required at the stage of framing charges. The arguments before the High Court highlighted the petitioner’s assertion that the order lacked cogent reasoning and failed to consider material that could negate the criminal allegations against him. The petition also underscored that the trial court’s reliance on observations regarding alleged bribe demands was without supporting evidence in the record and that such assertions should not have formed the basis for framing charges. The challenge before the High Court, therefore, sought to ensure that judicial standards required at the stage of framing a charge were upheld and that the petitioner’s legal rights were protected against what was described as an unwarranted progression of criminal proceedings.
The allegations in the underlying case involved both statutory and procedural elements, raising questions about the sufficiency of evidence required to justify continuing the prosecution against Chidambaram. The defense contended before the High Court that absent any demonstrable evidence linking him to the alleged offence, the continuation of criminal proceedings and framing of charges was legally untenable. The petition, thus, cast the framing order as legally flawed and sought judicial intervention to set aside the order and halt proceedings against the petitioner.
With the judge’s recusal and the matter being relisted before another bench, the case awaited further judicial consideration as to whether the High Court would accept the grounds for challenging the framing of charges and whether it would grant relief to Chidambaram. Until such consideration, the trial court’s order framing charges remained in effect, and the trial process in respect of the other accused would continue in accordance with the procedures prescribed under criminal law. The legal battle before the High Court represented a significant stage in the litigation arising from the allegations in the Chinese visa scam case against Chidambaram and others.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.