Madras High Court adjourns Karti Chidambaram's summons matter to September 29
Chennai: The Enforcement Diretorate (ED) had issued summons in connection with 2G scam recently to Karti Chidambaram, son of former Union minister and MP P. Chidambaram.
When a petition filed by him to quash the summons issued to him came up for hearing before the Madras high court on Thursday, Additional Solicitor General G Rajagopalan informed Justice B. Rajendran, who heard the matter, that the summons dated August 19 has been issued by ED requiring him to appear before the ED on August 31 in connection with 2-G scam.
Rajagopalan also informed the court that as Supreme Court had seized the matter relating to 2G scam, the high court had no jurisdiction to decide relating to issue.Later, the judge directed ASG to file an affidavit to that effect.
Former Union telecom minister and DMK leader A Raja and DMK MP, Kanimozhi were arrayed as prime accused in the 2G scam. On behalf of Karti, his power of attorney N.R.R Arun Natarajan of Periyar Nagar filed the petition before high court to quash the summons issued to Karti.
In the petition, Karti said the summons was motivated by malice in law. He has reason to believe that there has been determined campaign to bring discredit and harm to the reputation of his father Chidambaram, who is now a leading member of the Opposition in the centre.
The summons is a part of the attempt to embarrass, humiliate and harass petitioner’s father and members of his family. In the first summons issued dated June 21, ED required Karti or his representative to appear before it on July 5 along with a schedule of information. Karti’s sent a reply on July 2. In the second summons issued on July 5 the ED asked Karti to appear on July 18.
Again, he sent a reply. Meanwhile, he received third summon dated August 19, requiring him alone to appear before the EC on August 31. Again he replied on August 29.
Karti submited that ED was conducting a fishing and roving enquiry and not an investigation under Section 50(2) read with Section. 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Karti had not been named either as an accused, suspect or witness in any case. To the best of his information, no investigating agency of the Union government had registered any case relating to a ‘scheduled offence’ under the PMLA in which he has been named as an accused, suspect or witness.
The ED had not registered any case relating to ‘proceeds of crime’ arising out of a scheduled offence, Karti contended. He had apprehensions that ED may arrest him for failure to appear before it. Hence, he wanted the court to quash the summons and to forbear the authorities from taking any steps or action or proceedings against him pursuant to the August 19 summons.
Taking note of the ASG submission, the judge adjourned matter till September 29.
