Aircel-Maxis case: Delhi High Court stays trial court proceedings against P Chidambaram over alleged money laundering

Delhi High Court on Wednesday, November 20, put a stay order on the proceedings against Senior Congress Leader P Chidambaram's alleged involvement in the Aircel Maxis money laundering case, reported the news agency PTI.

The high court has also asked for a response from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) over a plea filed by Chidambaram challenging the trial court's decision to take cognizance of the chargesheet filed by the ED against him in the Aircel-Maxis money laundering case, as per the report. 

The Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri bench issued the stay order to the trial court proceedings and listed the matter to be taken up in January 2025 for a detailed hearing. The court also issued a notice to the Enforcement Directorate.

Chidambaram, through his advocates, stated that the trial court judge erred in taking cognizance of the of the offence (under Section 3 of the PMLA), punishable (under Section 4 of the PMLA), without any prior Sanction (under Section 197(1), CrPC) having been obtained by the Respondent/ED for prosecution of the Petitioner herein, despite the fact that the Petitioner was a public servant (being the Finance Minister) at the time the alleged commission of the alleged offence, reported the agency. 

As per the ED's plea, P Chidambaram, the Minister of Finance at that time, allegedly illegally granted FIPB approval for $800 million (nearly ₹3,565.91 crores) but was only competent to approve up to ₹600 crore foreign direct investment (FDI), according to the agency report.

The Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) was the competent authority to grant approvals for FDI exceeding ₹600 crore, according to the case filed by the Enforcement Directorate, reported the agency. 

The ED also alleged that the prosecution complaints dated June 6, 2018 and October 25, 2024 against Chidambaram that he was a public servant, and the alleged offence is claimed to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his duties as the then Finance Minister. 

Section 65 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) makes all provisions of the CrPC applicable to proceedings under the PMLA, including Section 197 CrPC, as per the agency report citing the plea.

The plea highlighted that under Section 197(1), CrPC extends to Petitioner and the Ld. Special Judge erred in taking cognizance of the offence u/s 3 r/w Section 4 of the PMLA as against the Petitioner without the Respondent/ED having obtained previous sanction u/s 197(1), reported the agency.