‘Copy-Paste’ in Bail Denial to Chidambaram? Judge Clarifies

Delhi HC reproduced some paragraphs of SC’s 2017 Rohit Tandon case judgment in its bail denial order to Chidambaram.

Former Union Minister P Chidambaram.

(Photo: PTI)

Days after the Supreme Court slammed the Enforcement Directorate for its “copy-paste” job while drafting the appeal against bail to Congress leader DK Shivakumar, a similar practice by the Delhi High Court has come under the scanner in the INX media case.

The Delhi High Court denied bail to former Union Minister P Chidambaram in the case on Friday, 15 November.

In his 41-page order, uploaded on 16 November, Justice Suresh Kumar Kait of the high court reproduced some paragraphs from a 2017 Supreme Court order rejecting bail to Delhi-based lawyer Rohit Tandon in a money-laundering case. After this led to widespread criticism, the judge clarified that this was only a reference to the other judgment.

The Supreme Court will hear the bail plea on Wednesday, 20 November.

As reports of “copy-pasting” started circulating, Karti Chidambaram, son of the former finance minister, posted a newspaper clipping with the caption “cut, copy and paste.”

Justice Suresh Kait Clarifies

The Delhi High Court clarified on Monday that the facts of another case mentioned in the order denying bail to former finance minister P Chidambaram are only for reference.

Justice Suresh Kait said it was nowhere mentioned in the 15 November order that the observations made in that particular paragraph relate to Chidambaram’s case.

The court's clarification came while taking up the matter suo motu (on its own) following news articles that there is 'cut and paste' work in the judgement.

“Thus, there is no cut and paste as alleged and I hereby make it clear that observations made in paragraph 35 shall be read as and are confined to the case of 'Rohit Tandon Vs Enforcement Directorate',” the judge said.

The court directed the chief editors of two newspapers, who have published the “wrong averments”, to clarify the same in their respective newspapers on Tuesday.

What Is Common Between Both the Orders?

The common content in the two orders reads:

35. Tandon's case that "it is alleged that during the period from November 15, 2016 to November 19, 2016 huge cash to the tune of Rs. 31.75 crores was deposited in eight bank accounts in Kotak Mahindra Bank in the accounts of 'group of companies'." The order says the prosecution in that case has given details of demand draft issued from November 15, 2016 to November 19, 2016 from eight bank accounts in the name of Sunil Kumar, Dinesh Kumar, Abhilasha Dubey, Madan Kumar, Madan Saini, Satya Narain Dagdi and Seema Bai on various dates. Most of the Demand Drafts issued have since been recovered.

36. The statements recorded during investigation have evidentiary value under Section 50 PMLA. Prima facie, the version given by them is in consonance with the prosecution case. The prosecution has further relied upon call data records, CCTV footage. Account Trend Analysis,” the high court order notes.

According to Bar and Bench, while it is common to refer to the facts of a case being relied upon, this particular verdict goes on to borrow in verbatim the conclusion as well.

Paragraph 40 of the P Chidambaram order and a part of Paragraph 23 of the Supreme Court order reads as follows, reported Bar and Bench:

"...The stated activity allegedly indulged into by the accused named in the commission of predicate offence is replete with mens rea. In that, the concealment, possession, acquisition or use of the property by projecting or claiming it as untainted property and converting the same by bank drafts, would certainly come within the sweep of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. That would come within the meaning of Section 3 and punishable under Section 4 of the Act."

Tandon, who was arrested in 2016, is an accused in the demonetisation-related money laundering case.

ED has approached the Delhi High Court seeking rectification of an “inadvertent”error in the order denying bail to Chidambaram in the INX Media case.

ED had arrested 74-year-old Chidambaram in the case on 16 October.

He was arrested by the CBI on 21 August in the INX Media corruption case and was granted bail by the Supreme Court in the CBI case on 22 October.

(With inputs from PTI and Bar and Bench)