HC clarifies on contentious paragraph of Chidambaram's bail order

The Delhi High Court clarified on Tuesday that the allegations mentioned in a certain paragraph of its order denying bail to P Chidambaram, lodged in Tihar Jail in the INX Media money-laundering case, were related to a case of lawyer Rohit Tandon and not of the Congress leader.

Justice Suresh Kait, who clarified on Monday that paragraph 35 of the November 15 order dealt with allegations in Tandon's case, said it was "nowhere" mentioned in paragraph 40 of the 41-page verdict that the allegations were related to Chidambaram's case.

"Thus, there is no error on the face of it. However, the said paragraph (40) be read as allegations in Rohit Tandon's case," the judge said.

The court made the clarification while disposing of an Enforcement Directorate (ED) application, seeking rectification of the "accidental slip/inadvertent error" in certain paragraphs of the bail order.

The ED, through the Centre's standing counsel Amit Mahajan, claimed that there were inadvertent errors in four paragraphs -- 35, 36, 39 and 40 -- of the order.

"Inadvertently, it appears that the said factual portion of the judgment relied by the ED, instead of being quoted or summarised as part of the relied upon judgments, have been inadvertently/accidentally referred to in the order dated November 15 as the factual submissions made by the ED," the central agency said in its application.

The plea was vehemently opposed by senior advocate Dayan Krishnan and lawyer Arshdeep Singh, representing Chidambaram, who said it was not maintainable and the court did not have the power to alter its own order under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Krishnan said the clarifications the ED was seeking were not clerical mistakes and that they had already challenged the bail order in the Supreme Court.

Regarding paragraph 39, the court said only the law was discussed and no further error or correction was required in it.

As far as paragraph 36 was concerned, Mahajan submitted that the ED, in its submission, never talked about CCTV footage and this inadvertent error in the order be rectified.

The court clarified that the words "CCTV footage" were mentioned inadvertently and due to a clerical mistake and the reference to call data records and Account Trend Analysis was justified in view of the ED's submissions made in a sealed cover.

"The words 'CCTV footage' not to be read as part of this paragraph," it said.

On the strong opposition of Chidambaram's counsel to ED's rectification plea, the judge said if there was a mistake in the order, it could be rectified.

"Show me their (ED) submissions anywhere, which talk about CCTV footage," the judge said.

To this, Krishnan said, "Why will I show it here? We will show it in the Supreme Court, the SLP is pending there now."
The judge, who took up the matter suo motu (on its own) on Monday following news articles which alleged that there was "cut-and-paste" work in the judgment, said, "This is motivated news. You want the order as per your choice...because you did not get the order that you wanted."
The judge said, "With some sense of responsibility, I am saying I have rightly dismissed the bail application by recording my reasons."
When Mahajan said what opposition could Chidambaram have with the application and that they were only trying to scandalise the issue, Krishnan shot back, saying, "No, we are not scandalising it."
"The prosecution has further relied upon call data records, CCTV footage, Account Trend Analysis."