New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought the stand of the CBI on Congress MP Karti Chidambaram’s petition challenging the framing of charges of corruption and conspiracy against him in the alleged Chinese visa scam case.
Justice Manoj Jain, however, refused to stay the trial court proceedings at this stage and issued notice on Karti Chidambaram’s application seeking the relief.
The senior counsel appearing for the Lok Sabha MP from Sivaganga submitted that the case was slated to be taken up by the trial court on February 4, even when no case was made out against him.
“The petitioner assails the order dated 23-12-2025 whereby he has been directed to face trial…The prime reason for assailing the charges is the complete absence of essential ingredients of Sections 8 and 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 204 IPC. It is also contended that there is nothing which may remotely indicate any demand or, for that matter, any acceptance. Special prosecutor for CBI appears on advance notice and seeks a short date to file a brief reply/status report. Let it be filed before the next date of hearing…the next date before learned trial court is February 4 for admission/denial of documents”.
The court also issued notice on the stay application. At the outset, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Chidambara,m submitted that the matter is listed before the trial court on February 4, adding that the charge is framed under Section 204 IPC (destruction of document or electronic record to prevent its production as evidence) for which there is no material.
For context, charges have been framed for criminal conspiracy, destruction of evidence, and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act relating to bribing a public servant and bribing a public servant by a commercial organisation.
“We will hear on the next date,” the court orally said. To this, Luthra said that the matter is listed on the next date for evidence post charge. Meanwhile, Special Prosecutor Anupam Sharma for the CBI said that the matter is listed next before the trial court for admission and denial of documents. The court at this stage orally said, “This can’t be stayed. We seek a short reply from Sharma and then we will have it…”. Luthra thereafter submitted that a charge under Sections 8 and 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, without there being a public servant, would not stand.
“Their entire case hinges on 3 things. On an alleged approver who has given seven statements according to them…there were several visas which a company wanted. Allegation that they seem to make a person who was a conduit reach out to me (petitioner) and he facilitated it. He said I will get it done and some payment is made. Nothing was paid to me.
The only material they have against me is that one Bhaskaraman sent an email to me and there is a read receipt. I have not even responded to it. And the trial court says I’m framing a charge under Section 204 (IPC) against this man. There is no basis. Chargesheet didn’t make out 204 against me. Thats a clear error. Trial court says its a sessions trial.
It’s a warrant trial by a magistrate, though it’s a special judge. The trial court says I will determine whether evidence is there under trial. If you have material to send me to trial by all means you send me, but if there is none you can’t,” he said.
Earlier Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani and Justice Girish Kathpalia had recused from hearing the matter. The special CBI judge had framed charges against the Congress leader and seven other accused in the case. One Chetan Shrivastava was discharged in the matter. In his plea, Chidambaram has contended that there is no material which would show any suspicion, let alone grave suspicion and hence, the case against him ought not to proceed to trial.
It has been submitted that there was no demand or acceptance of gratification by Chidambaram and that the Trial Court incorrectly observed that Karti had demanded Rs. 50 lakh. The case concerns an allegation of issuance of visas to 263 Chinese nationals in the year 2011 when P Chidambaram, Karti Chidambaram’s father, was the Home Minister. The scheduled offences case of CBI was registered in respect to the allegations of payment of a bribe of Rs.50 lakhs by M/s. Talwandi Sabo Power Limited, a subsidiary company of the Vedanta Group, which was given a contract by the Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) for establishment of a 1980 MW thermal power plant at District Mansa, Punjab and M/s TSPL was in the process of establishing the said power plant with the help of a Chinese Company named M/s Shandong Electric Power Construction Corp (M/s SEPCO). It was alleged that M/s TSPL was in need of some more Project Visas for Chinese experts from M/s SEPCO, as it was running behind its schedule for the establishment of the said project, and due to this, it was likely to have huge financial repercussions in terms of penalty and interest on bank loans etc. Project Visas were introduced in October 2010 as a new type of visa for the power and steel sectors only and detailed guidelines governing the issuance of such visas are also stated to have been issued with the approval of P. Chidambaram.
It was also alleged that in the said guidelines, there was no provision of re-use of the Project Visas and any deviation from the said guidelines was permitted only in rare and exceptional circumstances with the approval of the Union Home Secretary and the Union Home Minister. It is CBI’s case that the accused Vikas Makharia on behalf of M/s TSPL, had approached the accused S. Bhaskararaman, who was a close associate of the accused Karti, and sought his help in the matter of re-use of Project Visas for his company. It was also alleged that on directions of the accused S. Bhaskararaman, Vikas Makharia had even sent a copy of the request letter through email to him and Bhaskararaman had further forwarded the same to Karti P. Chidambaram.
S. Bhaskararaman later allegedly demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 50 lakhs for ensuring approval for the above said request and the demand was accepted by Vikas Makharia. It has been alleged in the CBI case that sufficient documentary evidence existed in the form of e-mails exchanged between the accused Vikas Makharia and accused S. Bhaskararaman on one side and also the accused S. Bhaskararaman and Karti P. Chidambaram on the other to substantiate the allegations of grant of approval for re-use of Project Visas on payment of a bribe of Rs.50 lakhs.
Thus, it was alleged that the above approval of the Union Home Secretary and Union Home Minister for the above said proposal was granted in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy hatched between all the above accused persons and some other unknown private persons and public servants and an investigation to unearth the above criminal conspiracy and to identify the participants thereof is in progress. The matter is listed on February 12.
