INX Media case: Allegation of influencing witnesses nothing but conjecture, Chidambaram tells court

“The said allegations are predicated on possibility, apprehension and or potential,” Sibal said, adding that the “liberty of a citizen cannot be interfered with merely on the basis of possibility or apprehension or potential and in the absence of any substantive and cogent material in support of such allegations”.

Read | Manmohan Singh says all decisions collective, recorded in files

Sibal further argued that there is no loss to the public exchequer in this case. “No public funds were involved in this case and it also not a case of bank fraud or taking money out of the country or defrauding depositors or stealing money from a company. On the contrary, Rs 305 crore has come into INX Media (the investment company) as FDI, well within the approval percentage of 46.216 % of equity. Out of this Rs 305 crore, Rs 26 crore was invested in an Indian subsidiary company (namely INX News) based on FIPB approval,” Sibal argued.

Probing charges of corruption in the INX Media case, the CBI had arrested Chidambaram on August 21. The next day, he was remanded in CBI custody for 15 days and is now in judicial custody in Tihar jail till October 3.

Referring to the CBI’s allegations of the office of the finance minister being allegedly misused with brazenness and impunity, Sibal said “as per normal procedure, the FDI proposal of INX Media was processed by several officers in the FIPB unit”. “Thereafter, it was put up to the FIPB (comprising of six secretaries), which after due consideration, made its recommendations to the Ministry of Finance. In the Ministry, the case was once again examined by several officers ( from the Under Secretary all the way up to the Additional Secretary) of the Department of Economic Affairs (DEA). Thereafter, the case was put up to the Secretary, DEA, (who had previously considered and recommended the case as Chairman of the FIPB) who once again signed the file and put it up to the competent authority (Finance Minister) on May 28, 2007,” Sibal told the court.

Sibal argued that no single officer can take a decision on any proposal. “It is a collective decision of six Secretaries, assisted by several officers in the FIPB Unit and the Department of Economic Affairs. Therefore, it is preposterous to allege that any person, such as Mr Chidambaram’s son Karti Chidambaram, could have influenced any official of the FIPB, including all six senior Secretaries to the Government of India,” Sibal said.