News Updates

No 'Cut-Paste' In Chidambaram's Bail Order In INX Media Case, Clarifies Delhi HC [Read Order]

Karan Tripathi
18 Nov 2019 12:15 PM GMT
No Cut-Paste In Chidambarams Bail Order In INX Media Case, Clarifies Delhi HC [Read Order]
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Delhi High Court on Monday clarified that the order rejecting bail to P Chidambaram contained no 'cut-paste' from the judgment in Rohit Tandon's case. 

Justice Suresh Kumar Kait issued this clarification after taking suo moto notice of the report published by "The Hindu" on November 17 that the November 15 order in Chidambaram's case had copy pasted certain facts from Rohit Tandon's case.

Justice Kait clarified that paragraph 34 of the bail order was only in reference to observations made by the court in Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement.

The court also stated that it was no where mentioned that the facts in paragraph 35 referred to the case of P Chidambaram. Hence, the Court said that there was no "cut and paste" as alleged. The Court also clarified that paragraph 35 should be read with reference to the case of Rohit Tandon.

In the words of the Court :

"It has nowhere been mentioned that the observation made in para 35 are of the present case (in the case of P Chidambaram). Thus there is no cut and paste as alleged and I hereby make it clear that that the observations made in para 35 shall be read as and are confined to the case of Rohit Tandon vs Enforcement Directorate."

Paragraph 35 of the bail order in Chidambaram's case stated that:

" is alleged that during the period from 15.11.2016 to 19.11.2016, huge cash to the tune of ₹31.75 crore was deposited in eight bank accounts in Kotak Mahindra Bank in the accounts of the 'Group of Companies'. It gives details of Demand Drafts issued during 15.11.2016 to 19.11.2016 from eight bank accounts in the name of Sunil Kumar, Dinesh Kumar, Abhilasha Dubey, Madan Kumar, Madan Saini, Satya Narain Dagdi and Seema Bai on various dates. Most of the Demand Drafts issued have since been recovered".

These facts pertained to Rohit Tandon's case.  As this paragraph was not given in quotes, it led to confusion whether the paragraph was a quote from the Rohit Tandon judgment or observations relating to Chidambaram's case.

The court, while clarifying its order, also directed 'The Hindu' and 'The Indian Express' to publish the clarification.

"Therefore, the Chief Editors of the above mentioned newspapers (The Hindu and The Indian Express) who have published the aforementioned wrong averments are directed to clarify the same in their newspaper on 19.11.2019.", ordered Justice Kait.

The Enforcement Directorate on Monday moved an application to rectify the "inadvertent factual errors" and "accidental slips" in the order in Chidambaram's case.

Click here to download order

Read Order

Next Story
Share it