No material to indicate Chidambaram threatened witness, says SC

The apex court, which granted bail to the 74-year-old former finance minister in the case, dealt with the ED submissions that he wields influence over witnesses.

Published: 04th December 2019 09:10 PM  |   Last Updated: 04th December 2019 11:46 PM   |  A+A-

Former Finance Minister P Chidambaram

Former Finance Minister P Chidambaram (Photo | PTI)


NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Wednesday said there was no material to indicate that Congress leader P Chidambaram or anyone on his behalf had "restrained or threatened" a witness who refused to be confronted with him during probe in the INX Media money laundering case filed by the ED.

The apex court, which granted bail to the 74-year-old former finance minister in the case, dealt with the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) submissions that he wields influence over witnesses and there was likelihood of tampering of evidence.

"With regard to the witness having written that he is not prepared to be confronted as he is from the same state, the appellant (Chidambaram) cannot be held responsible for the same when there is no material to indicate that the appellant or anyone on his behalf had restrained or threatened the concerned witness who refused to be confronted with the appellant in custody," a bench headed by Justice R Banumathi said.

The bench, which also comprised justices A S Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, set aside the November 15 verdict of the Delhi High Court denying him bail in the case.

The top court noted submissions of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who had appeared for the ED and said that although there was not much grievance with regard to the high court's conclusion that Chidambaram is not a 'flight risk', the finding on likelihood of tampering and influencing witness has not been considered in its "correct perspective".

"The finding in that regard has not been assailed and in such event, the appellant in our opinion cannot be taken by surprise. Even otherwise as rightly observed by the single judge (of high court) the evidence and material stated to have been collected is already available with the investigating agency," the bench said in its 37-page verdict.

Mehta had also told the apex court that further materials were still to be collected in the case, letter rogatory has been issued and thus the possibility of tampering cannot be ruled out.

The bench noted ED's submissions that having held a "very high position" and also due to his status, Chidambaram is likely to influence witnesses.

"In the present situation, the appellant is not in political power nor is he holding any post in the Government of the day so as to be in a position to interfere. In that view such allegation cannot be accepted on its face value," the bench said.

It said that availability of Chidambaram for further investigation, interrogation and facing trial is not jeopardized and he is already held to be not a 'flight risk' and there is no possibility of tampering the evidence or influencing or intimidating the witnesses.

The bench said that he would not tamper with the evidence or attempt to intimidate or influence the witnesses in the case.

During arguments in the top court, the ED had claimed that Chidambaram continued to wield "substantial influence" on crucial witnesses in the case even while in custody.

The Congress leader had countered the submissions saying the agency cannot "destroy" his career and reputation by making baseless allegations.

Chidambaram has been in custody since August 21 when he was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in INX Media corruption case.

On October 16, the ED arrested him in the separate money-laundering case.

Six days later, on October 22, the apex court had granted him bail in the case lodged by the CBI.

CBI had registered its case on May 15, 2017, alleging irregularities in a Foreign Investment Promotion Board clearance granted to INX Media group for receiving overseas funds of Rs 305 crore in 2007 during Chidambaram's tenure as finance minister.

Thereafter, ED had lodged a money laundering case.


Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

  • john237

    Really I do not blame Modi-Shah for the 106 days of jail term to the 74 years old ex-FM without framing any charge against him. But I do blame our judicial system including the HC and the SC who had blindly allowed judicial custody without taking any step to find out whether the person is guilty of and the guilt warrant more than 100 days of custody. Can we file any charges against this tinted judiciary? or will allow to continue her unjust and inhumane treatment to many more at the pleasure of the corrupt government?
    2 years ago reply
flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp