INX Media Case: PMLA Appellate Tribunal Rejects Karti Chidambaram's Plea Against ED Asset Attachment

The Appellate Tribunal under Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators Act (SAFEMA) at Delhi (PMLA Appellate Tribunal) on Wednesday dismissed a plea by former Union minister P Chidambaram's son, Karti P Chidambaram, challenging the Enforcement Directorate's attachment of his assets in the INX Media money laundering case.

In an order dated October 29, 2025, passed by a coram of Balesh Kumar and Rajesh Malhotra, the tribunal upheld the PMLA Adjudicating Authority's order of March 29, 2019, which had confirmed a provisional attachment issued by the ED in October 2018.

The tribunal held that the mere delay in filing the Prosecution Complaint did not invalidate the attachment, as the Supreme Court's COVID-19 limitation extension order applied to the case. It observed that the fact that the ED filed its Prosecution Complaint on June 1, 2020, beyond the 365 day statutory limit prescribed from the attachment confirmation order, did not affect the legality of the attachment.

“The question that if the Respondent Directorate could file the Prosecution Complaint on 01.06.2020, then why could they not do so within 365 days of the passing of the Impugned Order would not impact the answer to the moot question that the coverage of the Order dated 10.01.2022 (supra) was wide enough as to allow the filing of the Prosecution Complaint under PMLA beyond 365 days of the passing of the Impugned Order, as long as, such period fell within the extended period of limitation from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022,” the tribunal said.

Karti Chidambaram had argued that under Section 8(3)(a) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, attachments can continue only for 365 days after confirmation unless a case is pending before the court. He pointed out that the Prosecution Complaint was filed 430 days after the Adjudicating Authority's order, contending that this lapse made the confirmation invalid. Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in S. Kasi v. State (2020), his counsel argued that no attachment could continue unless proceedings were pending before a court.

The tribunal rejected that contention, noting that S. Kasi dealt with personal liberty, not property rights. “We observe that the Judgment in the matter of S. Kasi (supra) was passed in the context of grant of default bail, which has direct bearing on personal liberty. The present matter relates to continuation of attachment of movable and immovable properties of the Appellant, unlike the issue of personal liberty,” the order said.

Acknowledging the disruptions caused by the pandemic, the tribunal accepted that the nationwide lockdown created extraordinary circumstances. “The enormity of the situation for the Investigating Officer to have completed the investigation during the period of lockdown, when he was not even authorized to visit the witnesses or record their statements needs to be appreciated,” it observed.

“The nature of Covid-19 did not rule out threat to life arising from mere human interaction. The extraordinary circumstances arisen due to Covid-19 would have had an impact on the pace of the investigations being conducted.”, it added

The ED had provisionally attached assets worth Rs 22.28 crore on October 10, 2018. These included a 50 percent share in a flat at Jor Bagh, New Delhi, and seven bank accounts in Chennai, with a combined balance of over Rs 6 crore.

Case Title: Karti P. Chidambaram v The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement

Case Number: FPA-PMLA-3000/DLI/2019

For the Appellant : Advocates Arshdeep Khurana, Akshat Gupta, Sidak Singh Anand

For the Respondent : Advocates Zoheb Hossain, Vivek Gurnani, Kanishk Maurya, Advocate

Click here to read/download order