Former Finance Minister and Congress leader P Chidambaram on Saturday filed a rejoinder in a Delhi court, responding to allegations levelled by the Central Bureau of Investigation in connection with the Aircel-Maxis Case.
Former Finance Minister and Congress leader P Chidambaram on Saturday filed a rejoinder in a Delhi court, responding to allegations levelled by the Central Bureau of Investigation in connection with the Aircel-Maxis Case.
The former Union Minister has denied any ‘conspiracy’ pertaining to the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) approval alleged to be fraudulently granted by him when he was the Finance Minister in March 2006. Chidambaram has stated no “illegal gratification” was received in granting the deal.
“The averments (by the CBI) that the applicant (Chidambaram) had usurped the power of the Cabinet Committee of Economic Affairs, unlawfully granted the FIPB (Foreign Investment Promotion Board) approval to Global Communication Services Ltd, Mauritius, and had chosen not to disclose facts which are in his exclusive knowledge are denied as being false, baseless and untenable,” the politician said, adding that “approval was granted on the basis of deliberation in the FIPB and recommendations of the FIPB that was put up to the then Finance Minister in the normal course of official business.”
The rejoinder submissions were filed before Special Judge O P Saini through advocates P K Dubey and Arshdeep Singh. “It is submitted that the FIPB was chaired by the secretary, economic affairs, and included four other secretaries (industry, commerce, external affairs and overseas Indian affairs), and the secretary of the administrative ministry concerned.
“Five of them were among the senior most IAS officers and sixth was a senior IFS officer of the ministry of external affairs. Each one of them had a long and distinguished record of service,” the rejoinder said. It said as per the normal procedure, the recommendations of the FIPB are submitted to the Ministry of Finance where they are once again examined by junior officers and then by the additional secretary and secretary before the file is put up to the competent authority (Finance Minister).
It is the FIPB that decides who is the competent authority in the given case, the rejoinder said. “Once the CBI itself chose not to either arrest Chidambaram during investigation, i.e., from the date of registration of the FIR in 2011 until grant of interim protection by this court vide its order dated July 23, or even issue any summons directing him to appear for questioning after December 6, 2015, the CBI cannot at this stage, that too after filing of the charge sheet on July 19, oppose the grant of bail to the applicant of the ground of alleged gravity of offence,” according to the rejoinder.
Chidambaram had been granted, till November 26, protection from arrest in the case filed by the CBI. In response to the CBI statement opposing the anticipatory bail that the Congress leader is an influential person and may influence witnesses and tamper with evidence, the reply states the “contentions of CBI is false, speculative, bereft of the details and untenable.”
“No evidence has been submitted by the CBI in support of its unfounded allegation that the applicant (Chidambaram) may tamper with the witnesses or evidence,” the document said.
“CBI had no hesitation in making false allegations against me and summoning me for questioning. Besides, no evidence has been submitted by the CBI in support of its unfounded allegation that the applicant may tamper with the witnesses or evidence,” ANI quoted the rejoinder as saying.
The CBI and the ED have sought custodial interrogation of the accused, saying they have not been cooperating and, therefore, making it difficult to complete the investigation in a time-bound manner as directed by the Supreme Court. The senior Congress leader and his son have come under the scanner of investigating agencies in the Rs 3,500-crore Aircel-Maxis deal and the INX Media case involving Rs 305 crore.
The ED is also probing a separate money-laundering case in the Aircel-Maxis matter, in which Chidambaram and Karti have been questioned by the agency and currently their anticipatory bail is pending.
The former Union Minister has denied any ‘conspiracy’ pertaining to the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) approval alleged to be fraudulently granted by him when he was the Finance Minister in March 2006. Chidambaram has stated no “illegal gratification” was received in granting the deal.
“The averments (by the CBI) that the applicant (Chidambaram) had usurped the power of the Cabinet Committee of Economic Affairs, unlawfully granted the FIPB (Foreign Investment Promotion Board) approval to Global Communication Services Ltd, Mauritius, and had chosen not to disclose facts which are in his exclusive knowledge are denied as being false, baseless and untenable,” the politician said, adding that “approval was granted on the basis of deliberation in the FIPB and recommendations of the FIPB that was put up to the then Finance Minister in the normal course of official business.”
The rejoinder submissions were filed before Special Judge O P Saini through advocates P K Dubey and Arshdeep Singh. “It is submitted that the FIPB was chaired by the secretary, economic affairs, and included four other secretaries (industry, commerce, external affairs and overseas Indian affairs), and the secretary of the administrative ministry concerned.
“Five of them were among the senior most IAS officers and sixth was a senior IFS officer of the ministry of external affairs. Each one of them had a long and distinguished record of service,” the rejoinder said. It said as per the normal procedure, the recommendations of the FIPB are submitted to the Ministry of Finance where they are once again examined by junior officers and then by the additional secretary and secretary before the file is put up to the competent authority (Finance Minister).
It is the FIPB that decides who is the competent authority in the given case, the rejoinder said. “Once the CBI itself chose not to either arrest Chidambaram during investigation, i.e., from the date of registration of the FIR in 2011 until grant of interim protection by this court vide its order dated July 23, or even issue any summons directing him to appear for questioning after December 6, 2015, the CBI cannot at this stage, that too after filing of the charge sheet on July 19, oppose the grant of bail to the applicant of the ground of alleged gravity of offence,” according to the rejoinder.
Chidambaram had been granted, till November 26, protection from arrest in the case filed by the CBI. In response to the CBI statement opposing the anticipatory bail that the Congress leader is an influential person and may influence witnesses and tamper with evidence, the reply states the “contentions of CBI is false, speculative, bereft of the details and untenable.”
“No evidence has been submitted by the CBI in support of its unfounded allegation that the applicant (Chidambaram) may tamper with the witnesses or evidence,” the document said.
“CBI had no hesitation in making false allegations against me and summoning me for questioning. Besides, no evidence has been submitted by the CBI in support of its unfounded allegation that the applicant may tamper with the witnesses or evidence,” ANI quoted the rejoinder as saying.
The CBI and the ED have sought custodial interrogation of the accused, saying they have not been cooperating and, therefore, making it difficult to complete the investigation in a time-bound manner as directed by the Supreme Court. The senior Congress leader and his son have come under the scanner of investigating agencies in the Rs 3,500-crore Aircel-Maxis deal and the INX Media case involving Rs 305 crore.
The ED is also probing a separate money-laundering case in the Aircel-Maxis matter, in which Chidambaram and Karti have been questioned by the agency and currently their anticipatory bail is pending.