New Delhi: While the Delhi High Court on Monday clarified that there was no ‘cut, copy, paste’ job in P. Chidambaram’s bail order, in a bail plea moved before the Supreme Court later the former Finance Minister cited it as ground.
Challenging the Delhi HC order, Chidambaram told the top court, “The patent non-application of mind in the Impugned Order (Delhi HC) is a distinct and separate ground for reversal of the impugned order and grant of bail”.
“This is reflected in clear insertion of facts relating to a distinct and different case of one Rohit Tandon into the factual context of the case of the petitioner (Chidambaram) i.e., mixing up the facts of the case,” Chidambaram stated.
Taking suo motu cognisance of reports published in a few major English dailes, the Delhi HC stated: “There is no cut and paste as alleged and I hereby make it clear that observations made in paragraph No. 35 shall be read as and are confined to the case of a Rohit Tandon vs Enforcement Directorate.”
The HC has directed Chief Editors of these newspapers, which published the wrong averment, to clarify the same in their respective newspapers on November 19.
In his bail plea in the apex court, Chidambaram said the order passed by the Delhi HC was erroneous, unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
Chidambaram, 74, has admittedly been incarcerated as on 18.11.2019 for a continuous period of approximately 89 days. The three factors — flight risk, tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses — were held in his favour by the high court, he stated.
He also sought bail on parity as one of the co-accused arrested in the case has been granted bail.
Earlier in the day, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) too approached the Delhi HC seeking correction of the factual errors that inadvertently and due to accidental slip had crept in paragraphs 35, 36, 39 and 40 of the order.
“It appears the factual assertions, which have been attributed to the respondent ED as part of its submissions, forms part of one of the judgments that was relied by it during the course of arguments,” the probe agency stated.
“Inadvertently, it appears the said factual portion of the judgment relied by the ED instead of being quoted or summarised as the part of the relied upon judgments, have been inadvertently/accidently referred to in the order dated November 15 as the factual submissions made by the ED,” the application said.