Read Time: 05 minutes
Senior Advocate Luthra argued, “arguing on the charge without this material would be damaging. If that material is inculpatory, then arguing on the charge without it would harm my case. And if the material is exculpatory, showing I have not taken any bribe, then I should definitely have access to such material. We are in a situation where we want a fair trial, which includes the right to have disclosure material”.
The Delhi High Court, on Monday, heard the petition filed by P. Chidambaram seeking to defer the arguments on charges before the trial court. P. Chidambaram, represented by Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, sought a fair trial.
Senior Advocate Luthra emphasized Chidambaram's right to access crucial disclosure material withheld by the CBI, arguing that without it, the defense could not adequately challenge the charges, jeopardizing the fairness of the trial.
The bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja listed the matter for further consideration on May 14, 2025.
During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Luthra pointed out that the trial court had not considered or discussed a judgment that the defense had relied upon. He emphasized that if the court had reviewed the written submissions, it would have come across the relevant judgments cited by the defense. Senior Advocate Luthra read out the impugned order, highlighting discrepancies and arguing that the trial could not proceed while further investigation was ongoing.
Senior Advocate Luthra also remarked, “the learned judge of the trial court treats the argument of CBI as the gospel truth”.
Senior Advocate Luthra argued that the CBI had not provided essential documents needed for a fair defense. He mentioned that certain documents were crucial to determining whether the material in question was exculpatory or inculpatory. He stated that without access to these documents, Chidambaram's ability to mount a proper defense was severely compromised. Additionally, he expressed concern that the CBI had issued LRs to Singapore and other countries in an attempt to trace an alleged money trail, but the relevant documents had not been handed over to the defense.
Further, Senior Advocate Luthra criticized the shifting stance of the CBI, asserting that it had not filed supplementary charge sheets to demonstrate that the investigation was complete. He also pointed out that the investigation had been ongoing since 2019, and yet, critical documents were still pending. Senior Advocate Luthra stressed that without access to the documents, the defense would be left in a precarious position, unable to fully challenge the charges.
On the other hand, the advocate for CBI contended that, “The law says- arguments of charge can be heard and charges can be framed but only till that stage”. The advocate for the CBI also contended that the documents in question were part of the ongoing investigation and could not be shared at this stage. The CBI representative argued that the court need not review all the judgments cited by the defense, but only those that were deemed relevant.
Case Title: P. Chidambaram v CBI (CRL.M.C.-8992/2024)
Please Login or Register
