The Delhi high court on Tuesday denied interim protectionfrom arrest to senior Congress politician P Chidambaram in a case of suspectedirregularities related to foreign investment received by INX Media PrivateLimited when he was finance minister in 2007, potentially opening the doors forhis arrest by investigating agencies.

The ruling prompted Chidambaram to immediately knock on thedoors of the Supreme Court, which will hear the plea on Wednesday. Teams of theCentral Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED),both of which are investigating the case, visited Chidambaram’s residence in theevening to arrest him but left after they couldn’t find him.

After two applications for anticipatory bail by Chidambaramwere dismissed by Delhi high court justice Sunil Gaur, his lawyer Kapil Sibal,another senior Congress leader, approached the apex court seeking an urgenthearing, and was informed by the court registrar to bring the matter beforejustice NV Ramana on Wednesday.The Delhi high court had reserved its order onMarch 11 on the interim bail plea.

Chidambaram, who is a member of the Rajya Sabha, requestedthe court to give him three days’ interim protection from arrest to enable himto file an appeal.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, another Congresscolleague of Chidambaram, said the defence would cite three grounds in arguingfor protection from arrest when it makes its case in the Supreme Court — thatChidambaram cannot be termed a flight risk, that he cannot be said to betampering with evidence, and he has responded to all the summons issued byinvestigators.

Justice Gaur cited two factors in declining the request forpre-arrest bail -- that Chidambaram had been evasive in his replies to thecourt, and that the case is of a grave nature.

“Magnitude and enormity of material produced disentitle thepetitioner [Chidambaram] from any pre-arrest bail,” the court said.

“I have pondered over this matter for long and afterweighing the pros and cons, I am of the considered view that the gravity of theoffence committed in the instant case amply justifies denial of pre-arrest bailto the petitioner. Grant of pre-arrest bail in serious matter like instant oneto an accused simply on the ground that investigation is complete and chargesheet has been filed, would defeat the ends of justice,” added the unusuallystrongly worded judgment for an anticipatory bail matter.The judge also saidChidambaram couldn’t be treated on par with other accused in the INX Media casewho are out on bail because he was the finance minister when he approvedforeign direct investment (FDI) in the broadcasting company. And he “cannot begiven pre-arrest bail simply because he is a sitting MP.”

“Both the sides have cited legal precedents but the facts ofthe case prima facie reveal that petitioner is the kingpin, i.e., the keyconspirator in this case,” the court said adding that law enforcing agenciescannot be made ineffective by putting legal obstacles of offences in question.

The INX Media case relates to alleged irregularities in theForeign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance given to the media groupfor receiving overseas funds to the tune of ₹305 crorewhen Chidambaram was finance minister. The CBI had registered a firstinformation report in the case on May 15, 2017 alleging irregularities in theFIPB clearance, the Enforcement Directorate lodged a money laundering case ayear later.

Indrani Mukerjea and her husband Peter Mukherjea, whoco-founded INX Media in 2007, have been charged with entering into a criminalconspiracy with Karti Chidambaram, P Chidambaram’s son, to get foreigninvestment and evade punitive measures for not having necessary approvals fromFIPB.

In March 2018, Indrani Mukerjea told CBI in a statement thata deal of $1 million was struck between Karti Chidambaram and the Mukerjeas tosecure approval from the FIPB in favour of INX Media. Last month, a Delhi courtallowed Indrani Mukerjea, who is a prime accused in the murder of her daughterSheena Bora, to turn approver in the INX case.In her application to turnapprover, Mukherjea prayed for a pardon in the case in exchange for full andtrue disclosure.

Karti Chidambaram was arrested by CBI in February last yearin connection with the INX media case. He was released on bail in March. The EDhas questioned Karti Chidambaram, now an MP from Tamil Nadu’s Sivaganga, onseveral occasions in the INX Media case. P Chidambaram was also questioned bythe ED in January this year and on December 19 last year.

The ED has attached properties worth ₹54 crorebelonging to Karti Chidambaram in connection with the case. The agency has alsoattached properties belonging to Indrani and Peter Mukerjea.

P Chidambaram has called the allegations against him and hisson political vendetta by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led NationalDemocratic Alliance (NDA) government.

Judge Gaur said in his ruling on Tuesday: “The Court is consciousof the fact that personal liberty of a citizen is sacrosanct, but no one isabove the law. Lawmakers cannot be allowed to turn into lawbreakers withimpunity, particularly in cases of this magnitude. What is so far to be seen isthe tip of iceberg.”He added: “Pre-arrest bail is not meant for high profileoffenders. Time has come to recommend to the Parliament to suitably amend thelaw to restrict the provisions of pre-arrest bail and make it inapplicable toeconomic offenders of high-profile cases like the instant one. It is the needof the hour. The law must come down upon economic offenders with a heavy hand.”

According to Supreme Court advocate Viplav Sharma, the lawis not settled on the issue of anticipatory bail. “There are two views amongstjudges, one set thinks that it should be for a limited period while the otherthinks that it can be extended throughout the trial. So it’s difficult at thisstage to say anything, However, if the accused is cooperating and his custodialinterrogation is not required, he should not be arrested.”