Wife of former Union Finance Minister P Chidambaram wife’s plea against ED summons on personal appearance rejected

Court says she can’t ask for protective discrimination as woman; there is no demon in the summons.

Published: 11th July 2018 04:37 AM  |   Last Updated: 11th July 2018 04:37 AM   |  A+A-

By Express News Service

CHENNAI: A division bench of the Madras High Court has dismissed the appeals from Nalini, wife of former Union Finance Minister P Chidambaram, challenging the summons of Enforcement Directorate asking her to appear before its office in Kolkata in connection with Saradha Chit Funds scam case.
“The appellant has not produced sufficient material, even prima facie so as to enable us either to hold the existence to likelihood of bias or malice either in fact or law,” a bench of Justices M M Sundresh and N Anand Venkatesan said on Tuesday.

Nalini said she had received `1 crore from the firm towards fees for rendering professional assistance and it was done after deducting TDS. The income had also been reflected in her return of income and accordingly tax had been paid. She also took umbrage under Sec. 160 of  CrPC, which stipulated certain restrictions on summoning women for enquiry.

Dismissing the appeals, the bench pointed out that Nalini, a designated senior advocate, was initially permitted to appear through the authorised agent. But, the impugned notice was issued on finding certain new facts and contradiction in the statements given by the agent. Nalini has been rendering a professional service by travelling extensively throughout the country. For appearing before an authority, which is mandated by law, she seeks protective discrimination as a woman.

A legal profession stands apart on its own. In discharge of a professional duty, there is no difference between a man and woman. It is clear from reading of Sec.160 CrPC, certainly, the fair construction principle would apply. There is no demon in the summons issued at this stage. There is no need to speculate. Neither a likelihood of bias nor malice can be seen through the summons issued. The appellant did not choose to challenge the summons earlier. She did rightly appear through the agent. Issues have been raised only when the ED asked her to appear in person, the bench said.

More from Tamil Nadu.


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.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp