HC direction to ASG on Karti's plea against ED summons

Don't want to miss the best from Business Standard?

The Madras High Court today directed the additional solicitor general (ASG) to file an affidavit stating that the court had no jurisdiction to hear any petition filed by Karti Chidambaram against the August 19 summons of the Enforcement Directorate, since it pertained to the 2G case.
Justice B Rajendran issued the direction when a petition, filed by Karti, son of former finance minister P Chidrambaram, challenging the third summons issued by the ED to him, came up before the court.
ASG G Rajagopalan, appearing for the ED, informed the court that the summons pertained to the 2G case and the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the plea as the Supreme Court was seized of the matter.

The judge observed that "if it is related to 2G, then this court has no jurisdiction" and directed the ASG to file an affidavit to that effect as demanded by former solicitor general Gopal Subramaniam who appeared on behalf of Karti.
The judge then posted the case to September 28.
The petition, filed by Karti through his counsel N R R Arun Natarajan, said the summons issued is "motivated by malice in law and malice in fact".

He has "reasons to believe that there is a determined campaign to bring discredit and harm to the reputation of his father, who is now a leading member of the opposition, it said.

The summons "is part of the attempt to embarrass, humiliate and harass" Karti's father and members of his family, it said.
"It is clear that the authorities are conducting a fishing and roving inquiry without reference to any scheduled offence and without reference to any proceeds of crime arising out of the said offence," the petition said.
Karti sought quashing of the summons, saying he had always offered to cooperate with and furnish information to the ED "if there is a valid investigation."
Seeking further information could not be interpreted to mean that he had ignored the summons or refused to appear, it said that already two summonses were issued by two different officers of the ED -- Rajeshwar Singh, a Deputy Director and Kamal Singh, Assistant Director.

Karti alleged that the ED has not replied to his letter
seeking details about his alleged involvement in the crime.
He submitted that "while not replying, the ED, on August 19, issued another summons asking him to appear on August 31. In this summons, the words 'through or authorized representative' which were in earlier two summonses, had been struck out."
He sent a reply on August 29, saying that the latest summons had been issued without replying to his earlier reply. On September 3, he sent another letter with similar content, but there was no response, it was submitted.
The petition said the ED's jurisdiction was limited to investigation and prosecution of an offence as defined in Section 3 of the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act), and there was no jurisdiction to conduct a fishing or roving inquiry into the affairs of any person or citizen.

Investigation should pertain only to a scheduled offence registered by a competent authority, the proceeds of the crime as a result of criminal activity and a reasonable belief that the person summoned had knowingly assisted or involved in such an activity, it said.
Subramaniam argued that Karti has not been named either as an accused, suspect or witness in any case.
To the best of his information, no investigating agency of the Government of India has registered any case relating to a 'scheduled offence' under PMLA, 2002 in which he has been named as an accused, suspect or witness, he said.

The ED has not registered any case relating to 'proceeds of crime' arising out of a scheduled offence, he said.
He said he has reason to believe that the ED will act "rashly and with ulterior motives" and that he apprehended that it might "invoke Note 2 of the summons which deals with prosecution and imprisonment for failure to appear".
He wanted the court to quash the summons and ask the authorities from taking any step or action or launch proceedings against him pursuant to the August 19 summons under PMLA.