SC To Hear Chidambaram’s Bail Petition After He Cites Delhi HC’s ‘Cut, Copy, Paste Job’ Order As His Ground To Seek Bail

The Supreme Court (SC) has agreed to hear the bail petition of Congress leader P Chidambaram in the INX Media money laundering case filed by the Enforcement Directorate, after he challenged a recent Delhi High Court order by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, denying him bail in the case.

Earlier, the Delhi High Court had clarified that there was no “cut, copy, paste job” in P Chidambaram's bail order.

However, Chidambaram’s bail plea moved before the Supreme Court has cited precisely the Delhi High Court which denied him bail is a “cut, copy and paste job” as the ground for seeking bail.

Challenging the Delhi High Court order denying him bail in the ED case, Chidambaram told the Supreme Court, “The patent non-application of mind in the Impugned Order (Delhi High Court) is a distinct and separate ground for reversal of the impugned order and grant of bail”.

“This is reflected in clear insertion of facts relating to a distinct and different case of one Rohit Tandon into the factual context of the case of the petitioner (Chidambaram) ie, mixing up the facts of the case,” Chidambaram stated.

It may be recalled that the Delhi High Court had taken suo motu cognizance of reports published in a few major English dailes and stated, “There is no ‘cut and paste’ as alleged and I hereby make it clear that observations made in paragraph number shall be read as and are confined to the case of a Rohit Tandon versus Enforcement Directorate”.

The Delhi High Court has also directed editors of newspapers, which published the so called ‘wrong averment’, to “clarify” the same in their respective newspapers on November 19.

In his bail plea moved before the Supreme Court, Chidambaram has stated that the order passed by the Delhi High Court was erroneous, unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

Chidambaram also sought bail on the basis of parity since one of the co-accused arrested in the same case has been granted bail.

Meanwhile, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) too approached the Delhi High Court seeking correction of factual errors which had accidentally crept into paragraphs 35, 36, 39 and 40 of the Delhi High court order.

“It appears that factual assertions, which have been attributed to the respondent Enforcement Directorate as part of its submissions, forms part of one of the judgments which was relied by it during the course of arguments,” the Enforcement Directorate stated.

“Inadvertently, it appears the said factual portion of the judgment relied by the ED instead of being quoted or summarized as the 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 ED application stated.