Entertaining Chidambaram’s plea against remand orders will set bad precedent: CBI to SC

Questioning the order of the Supreme Court, the CBI has submitted to the apex court that such an order would set a very bad precedent

Questioning the order of the Supreme Court, the CBI has submitted to the apex court that such an order would set a very bad precedent
Questioning the order of the Supreme Court, the CBI has submitted to the apex court that such an order would set a very bad precedent

Raising a protest, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) told the Supreme Court (SC) Tuesday that entertaining former Finance Minister P Chidambaram‘s plea challenging the remand orders of a trial court would “set a very bad precedent”. The CBI sought dismissal of Chidambaram’s plea and said that similarly placed accused in trial courts all over the country would come directly to the apex court, challenging the remand orders of the trial court “as liberty of other citizens would not be less important than of petitioner (P Chidambaram)”.

The affidavit of CBI was filed before a bench of Justices R Banumathi and A S Bopanna, which directed (in an unprecedented way) that Chidambaram remain in the custody of the CBI till September 5 and listed his plea for hearing on Thursday – September 5. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, filed the affidavit on the plea of Chidambaram in which he has challenged the non-bailable warrant (NBW) issued against him and the subsequent remand orders passed by the trial court.

In an unprecedented way, the bench headed by Justice Banumati ordered that “status quo” be maintained on Chidambaram’s custody despite the CBI insisting that it does not require his further custodial interrogation in the case.

In an affidavit filed by CBI S P Rajpal Meena, the probe agency said: “I state and submit that entertaining of a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution directly against an order of remand passed by the competent court in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under section 167 of the CrPC would set a very bad precedent.”

It said there is a remedy available against the orders before the higher forum and it is settled legal position that this court would not invoke its constitutional discretionary jurisdiction under Article

136, directly against an order of the Special Judge remanding an accused to a few days of police custody.

“If this court were to entertain the Special Leave Petition (SLP) directly against the order of the special judge remanding the accused to police custody, all the litigants whose prayer for listing of SLP against anticipatory bail are refused and are thereafter arrested will be entitled to file similar petitions challenging the orders of special judge granting police remand directly before this court as the personal liberty of other citizens (which is interfered with in accordance with law) would not be less important than petitioner,” the CBI said.

It said that normally such orders are not interfered with even by the high courts, more particularly when the Special Court has, after an elaborate and lengthy hearing, passed a detailed speaking order in exercise of its judicial discretion. Referring to a Constitution Bench verdict of apex court in 1986, the CBI said that normally the high court is the final arbiter in bail/ anticipatory bail matters.

“Generally all SLPs challenging the bail/ anticipatory bail are, therefore, not allowed to be listed immediately on mentioning before the Chief Justice of India unless extraordinary and special reasons are shown,” it said. The CBI further said that Chidambaram has not pointed out any extraordinary circumstances which would have justified any deviation from the consistent practice being followed.


“There are no extraordinary or grave circumstances which justifies the petitioner to by-pass the statutory remedies which are resorted to by all citizens challenging the order of remand and there may be no justification for allowing the petitioner to do so by entertaining the present SLP,” it said and sought dismissal of appeal filed by Chidambaram.

The apex court Bench headed by Justice Banumati is also scheduled to pronounce its order on September 5 on Chidambaram’s separate plea in which he has challenged the August 20 verdict of the Delhi High Court denying him anticipatory bail in the INX Media money laundering case lodged by the Enforcement Directorate.

We are a team of focused individuals with expertise in at least one of the following fields viz. Journalism, Technology, Economics, Politics, Sports & Business. We are factual, accurate and unbiased.
Team PGurus


  1. I apologise for m inability to understand the bulk of the verbal diarrhea of most of the above Comments. Will someone kindly explain what the CBO submission means —in simple English. And kindly exclude the Hus and Has.

    Arvind Lavakare

  2. It is time that military style courts should be installed to probe economic offences, where bail should not be granted and judgement to be pronounced in 2 years as in US. Our British origin judicial system has become obsolete. Unless we have an efficient system, criminals will rule the nation.

    Why should SC take up suomoto rape cases selectively ? Why can’t they have a bench to handle suomoto , every rape case in India? Why can’t life imprisonment be given to women and activist advocates if false rape charges are levied with ulterior motive ?

  3. The nation has already concluded that the judiciary is occupied by the judges anointed by the mafia of scamgress and they too obviously are urban naxals to the taste of the said mafias. Granting two dozen bails, and succumbing for the culprit’s plea have become order of the day if the culprits are influenced bureaucrats, moneyed or political scoundrels. God alone should save the nation.

  4. As expected, SC is ever so eager to help out corrupt politicians in India. Any wonder that Judiciary is losing/has lost respect of common Indian public?


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here