Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news
www.barandbench.com
P Chidambaram withdraws SLP in Supreme Court challenging CBI remand
News

P Chidambaram withdraws SLP in Supreme Court challenging CBI remand

Aditi Singh

The Supreme Court today allowed P Chidambaram to withdraw his Special Leave Petition challenging the order passed by the Special CBI Judge remanding him to CBI Custody.

The plea to withdraw the SLP was made by  the counsel for P Chidambaram, Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi before a Division Bench of Justices R Banumathi and AS Bopanna, shortly after the Bench refused to grant anticipatory bail to the former Union Minister in the case registered by the Enforcement Directorate in the INX Media case.

Chidambaram’s petition stated that he was constrained to move the Supreme Court directly invoking its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India rather than approach the Delhi High Court given the fact that it was the High Court’s Order of August 20 that paved the way for Chidambaram’s arrest and subsequent remand.

The petition highlighted that not only was the judgment denying anticipatory bail to P Chidambaram delivered seven months after it was reserved but that Justice Sunil Gaur, who passed the verdict, had also made certain observations with respect to the merits of the case itself.

P Chidambaram claimed that his liberty was curtailed without following the due procedure. The orders passed by the Special CBI Judge, first issuing non-bailable warrants and second remanding Chidambaram to Police Custody, are in the teeth of the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the petition stated.

Earlier this week, the CBI had filed an affidavit challenging the Special Leave Petition, contending that Chidambaram’s plea against the remand order ought not to be entertained given that he has alternate appellate forums that are yet to be exhausted. In its affidavit, the CBI had also argued that entertaining the SLP under Article 136 of the Constitution directly against an order of remand passed by the competent court in the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Section 167 of the Code would set a very bad precedent.