Aircel-Maxis money laundering case: Delhi HC stays trial against P. Chidambaram

Aircel-Maxis money laundering caseImage source: PTI Senior Congress leader and former Union Minister P. Chidambaram.

Aircel-Maxis money laundering case: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday stayed the trial against senior Congress leader P. Chidambaram in the Aircel-Maxis money laundering case. The court also issued a notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in response to Chidambaram’s plea challenging the court’s decision to take cognizance of the charge sheet filed against him by the ED. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, who presided over the case, stayed the proceedings in the court and sought response from the ED. The case is scheduled for a detailed hearing in January 2025.

Chidambaram through senior advocate N Hariharan, assisted by advocates Arshdeep Singh Khurana and Akshat Gupta, stated that the trial court judge in the impugned order erred by taking cognizance of the offense under Section 3 of the PMLA, punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA, without any prior sanction under Section 197(1), CrPC has been obtained by the respondent/ED for prosecution of the petitioner herein despite the fact that the petitioner was a public servant (being the Minister of Finance) at the time of the alleged commission of the alleged criminal offence.

What did the plea say?

The plea stated that in the complainant’s complaints dated June 13, 2018 and October 25, 2018 in the present case, the respondent/ED has alleged that the petitioner, in his capacity as the then Finance Minister of the Government of India, was authorized to initiate FIPB -to grant approval. for a total foreign direct investment (“FDI”) up to Rs. Only 600 Crore, and the competent authority to grant approvals in excess of this amount was the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (“CCEA”).

Charges against Chidambaram

It is alleged that the petitioner/P. Chidambaram illegally granted FIPB approval to the tune of US$800 million (about Rs. 3565.91 crores), which in the case of respondent/ED could have been granted only by the CCEA. According to the allegations made by the respondent/ED in the public prosecutor’s complaints dated June 13, 2018 and October 25, 2024 against the petitioner that he was a public servant and that the alleged offense was committed while he was acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his duties as then Finance Minister of the Government of India. Further, Section 65 PMLA makes all provisions of the CrPC applicable to proceedings under the PMLA, including Section 197 CrPC, the plea said.

(With ANI inputs)

READ ALSO: Waqf Board money laundering case: Delhi Court reserves decision on ED charge against Amanatullah Khan