Supreme Court On Delhi HC Deferring PMLA Charge Hearing Against Karti Chidambaram MP
The Supreme Court today issued notice on Enforcement Directorate’s plea against a Delhi High Court order which deferred arguments on charge against Congress mp karti chidambaram in the PMLA proceedings related to Chinese visa and Aircel Maxis cases.
A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, after hearing Additional Solicitor General SV Raju (for ED), who questioned why PMLA trial should await framing of charges in the predicate offense.
At first, Justice Kant expressed that the impugned order does not really cause any prejudice to ED. “Let’s suppose in the predicate offense, tomorrow no charge is framed, or the trial court frames charges but the High Court or this Court sets aside that, the entire labor, hard-work will go in waste”, said the judge.
In reply, the ASG countered with another hypothetical scenario: “Look at it the other way. I do not examine witnesses, the trial is delayed, witnesses die and my evidence is lost. The balance that has been struck is – go ahead with the trial, do not pronounce judgment until final order [in predicate offense trial] is there”. He added that there are 2 judgments directly on the issue.
Ultimately, the bench opined that the Delhi High Court interfered prematurely and it could have alternatively safeguarded Chidambaram by merely saying that the PMLA trial should not conclude before the trial in the predicate offense.
“Actually, the trial could conclude together. High Court has interfered little prematurely. The High Court could safeguard by saying that both trials will continue together and this trial will not take precedence…”, said Justice Kant.
The High Court order was passed by a Single Bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja on Chidambaram’s plea for deferring framing of charges against him in the money laundering cases unless charges were framed in the scheduled offences i.e. CBI FIRs.
The plea raised the question as to whether framing of charge under PMLA should be deferred or stayed until the charges are finalized for the predicate offence. As per Chidambaram, proceedings in the money laundering offence in the two cases ought not to proceed to the next stage until and unless the next stage has been completed in the scheduled offence.
ED, on the other hand, relied on a recent Supreme Court order in the case of S. Martin wherein interim directions were issued to the effect that trial in the scheduled offence as also under the PMLA shall go on, subject to the rider that no judgment should be pronounced in the PMLA case.
After hearing both sides, the High Court observed that existence of scheduled offence and proceeds of crime being the property derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to the scheduled offence are sine qua non for not only initiating prosecution under PMLA but also for continuation thereof.
It also noted that in S. Martin case, the question for consideration before the Supreme Court was as to whether the conclusion of trial in scheduled offence is necessary for framing of charge whereas Chidambaram was just praying that framing of charge in PMLA case be kept in abeyance till the charges were finalized in the case relating to predicate offence.
Issuing notice on Chidambaram’s plea, the High Court eventually ordered the trial court to defer arguments on charge in the PMLA proceedings.
Notably, the Supreme Court recently stayed trial in a PMLA case where chargesheet had not been filed in the predicate offense since 7 years.
Case Title: DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT Versus KARTI P. CHIDAMBARAM, Diary No. 40582-2025