A DAY after the Delhi High Court denied P Chidambaram’s plea for anticipatory bail in two cases of alleged corruption and money laundering linked to INX Media, the Congress leader failed to get any respite from the Supreme Court Wednesday despite the urgency cited by his lawyers to take up his petition for pre-arrest bail. By evening, Chidambaram’s counsel was informed by the Supreme Court Registrar that the plea has been listed for Friday. After the High Court rejected Chidambaram’s plea for interim protection from arrest Tuesday, Wednesday saw his legal team — Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Vivek Tankha, Salman Khurshid and others — assembling before a Supreme Court bench of Justices N V Ramana, Mohan M Shantanagoudar and Ajay Rastogi in Court No. 3. After Sibal informed the bench about the High Court’s order, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI and ED which are investigating the two cases, said “this is a case of monumental magnitude involving money laundering”. Intervening, Justice Ramana said he was sending the matter to Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi. At this, Sibal cited urgency and said that the CBI had pasted notices outside Chidambaram’s residence Tuesday night. Taking note, Justice Ramana said: “Usually, we send all these proceedings in the evening. In your case, we are sending immediately to the Chief Justice.” However, when Sibal urged that there should not be any arrest till the matter was heard, the bench did not respond. Sibal then moved to Court No.1 where a five-Judge Constitution Bench, headed by the CJI, was scheduled to hear the Ayodhya matter. But when the bench assembled, it did not say anything on Chidambaram’s plea. As the legal team waited, the Supreme Court Registry notified that the petition suffered from “technical defects”, which needed to be rectified before listing. At 2 pm, when the court resumed proceedings after lunch, Sibal and the others again approached Justice Ramana’s bench, but were told about the “defects”. Justice Ramana then instructed court officials to send word for the Registrar. Meanwhile, Sibal told the Bench: “My client is not running away. A lookout notice has been issued against him.We will give an undertaking that he is not going anywhere.” Taking exception, Solicitor General Mehta said he had something to add. Attempting to cool tempers, Justice Ramana told both sides that the occasion was only for mentioning. By then, the Registrar informed the bench that the defects in the petition had been cured. As Justice Ramana said that it will have to be listed for hearing, Sibal said: “That means it can’t be listed today.” Justice Ramana responded: “Without listing, can we hear? Mr Sibal, beyond this, we can’t do anything.” About 3.30 pm, Sibal and his team walked into Court Hall No. 1 where the Constitution Bench was hearing the Ayodhya case. As they looked on, the bench dispersed at 4 pm after winding up the day’s proceedings. The action then shifted outside the office of the Registrar (Listing), who took the plea to the CJI and informed the counsel by 4.45 pm that it has been listed for Friday. In his plea, Chidambaram said that the High Court had “erroneously dismissed” his bail application and that “none of the three grounds to deny bail were made out: there is no allegation that the Petitioner is likely to flee justice; or that the Petitioner is likely to influence the witnesses; or that the Petitioner is likely to tamper with the evidence”. The High Court, Chidambaram contended, “ignored the crucial fact that the Petitioner simply approved the unanimous recommendation of the FIPB, which was chaired by Secretary, Economic Affairs, and consisted of five other Secretaries” in the INX Media case.
