more-in The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) must have obtained the permission of the Madras High Court before arresting former Union Finance Minister P. Chidambaram’s son Karti P. Chidambaram at Chennai airport on February 28, Senior Counsel Gopal Subramaniam contended before the court on Monday. He was conducting a case filed against LookOut Circulars (LOCs) issued against Karti Chidambaram by the Bureau of Immigration last year in connection with the INX Media case. Counsel Subramaniam told the first Division Bench of Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Abdul Quddhose that Mr. Karti Chidambaram had travelled to London on the basis of an interim order passed by them on February 16 and returned to the country on February 28 in compliance of one of the conditions imposed by the court. The court had also directed him to give an undertaking to appear before the CBI immediately after his return to the home country. “Yet in order to frustrate the proceedings (pending before the High Court), the gentleman was lifted from airport without even the leave of the court when the court has imposed these conditions,” the Senior Counsel said. He also took exception to the CBI having filed a counter affidavit to the writ petition challenging the LOCs that had been issued by the BoI under the Union Home Ministry. He claimed that the Ministry ought to have filed the counter affidavit. Further, contending that the LOCs do not contain any reason for their issue, Mr. Subramaniam claimed that failure to mention reasons was a violation of the Centre’s own circulars related to the issue. ‘Officer’s discretion’ Additional Solicitor General G. Rajagopalan, however, contended that the case challenging the LOCs had nothing to do with the arrest of the petitioner since taking such action was within the discretion of the investigating officer concerned. He pointed out that the FIR in the INX Media case was booked on May 5, 2017. However, the CBI did not choose to arrest him immediately. Only a notice was issued to him under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure asking him to appear for inquiry. The petitioner did not comply with the notice until the matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, the LOCs were issued on the reasonable apprehension that he may escape from the clutches of law. The ASG asserted that it was sufficient for the CBI to file a counter affidavit in the present case since it was on a request made by it, and routed through the Intelligence Bureau, that the LOCs were issued by the BoI under the Home Ministry. “This has to be looked into as a pure and simple criminal case without any other considerations. Any interference by the court into the LOCs at this stage would seriously interfere with the investigation of the case,” he said. After hearing both sides as well as the arguments advanced by Senior Counsel Satish Parasaran, who represented a few “friends” of Mr. Karti P. Chidambaram since LOCs had been issued against them too, the first Division Bench posted the case for submission of written arguments on Tuesday when a decision would be taken on reserving the judgement.

Stay updated with all the Latest Madurai headlines here. For more exclusive & live news updates from all around India, stay connected with NYOOOZ.