New Delhi – The Delhi High Court has refused to immediately stay trial court proceedings against Congress MP Karti Chidambaram in the alleged Chinese visa case, dealing a significant blow to the lawmaker’s legal strategy. This decision in the Chinese visa case ensures that the trial will continue without interruption, maintaining momentum in the high-profile corruption investigation.
Court Refuses Stay in Chinese Visa Case
Justice Manoj Jain of the Delhi High Court on Wednesday declined to halt trial court proceedings in the Chinese visa case involving Karti Chidambaram. The bench noted that the lawmaker had only filed a petition against the trial court’s December 23 order framing charges, and the same could not be used to “derail the trial” in the Chinese visa case.
This refusal to grant a stay in the Chinese visa case represents a procedural setback for Karti Chidambaram, who must now participate in ongoing trial proceedings while simultaneously challenging the charge-framing order.
Charges Framed in Chinese Visa Case
The trial court on December 23 had framed charges against Karti and six others in the Chinese visa case, concluding that a prima facie case was established against him for offences of criminal conspiracy and bribery of a public servant. The judge in the Chinese visa case stated that the conspiracy hatched between accused number 1, S Bhaskaraman, and accused number 2, Karti Chidambaram, was evident.
The court hearing the Chinese visa case noted strong suspicion against Karti, backed by an approver’s statement, emphasizing that the case against him was not solely based on email confirmation. This multi-source evidence strengthens the prosecution’s position in the Chinese visa case.
Legal Arguments in Chinese Visa Case
Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing Karti in the Chinese visa case, urged the High Court to stay trial court proceedings, contending that the next hearing before the trial court was scheduled for February 4 and that the order framing charges was erroneous. Luthra’s arguments in the Chinese visa case focused on procedural irregularities.
In his submissions regarding the Chinese visa case, Luthra argued that charges had been framed under Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 8 (bribery of a public servant) and 9 (bribery by a commercial organisation) of the Prevention of Corruption Act without the essential ingredients required to constitute the offences.
Key Defense Contentions in Chinese Visa Case
Luthra’s defense strategy in the Chinese case emphasized that the CBI had neither identified the public servant allegedly bribed nor arraigned any such official in the case. He argued that the investigating agency lacked sufficient evidence to establish the demand or acceptance of bribes in the Chinese visa case.
Also Read: Contempt of House: Delhi Assembly Takes Decisive Action Against Kejriwal
These contentions challenge the foundation of the prosecution’s theory in the Chinese case, arguing that fundamental elements required for the alleged offences remain unproven or unidentified.
CBI’s Opposition to Stay Request
CBI’s lawyer Anupam Sharma opposed the request for a stay in the visa case, clarifying that the matter before the trial court on February 4 was only for admission and denial of documents. This procedural clarification undermined the urgency claimed by Karti’s defense team in seeking the stay in the visa case.
The CBI’s position in the visa case emphasizes that routine trial proceedings should continue while the High Court examines the challenge to the charge-framing order through proper legal channels.
Court’s Balanced Approach to Chinese Visa Case
Justice Manoj Jain took a balanced approach to the visa case, refusing immediate stay while acknowledging Karti’s right to challenge the charges. “We can’t do anything. We’ll hear on the next date. Whatever, you have to participate. This (trial) cannot be stayed,” the bench told Karti’s lawyers.
The court sought CBI’s response in the petition challenging the December 23 order and the application seeking a stay in the visa case, fixing February 12 as the next hearing date. This timeline ensures both parties can present comprehensive arguments regarding the visa case.
Multiple Recusals in Chinese Visa Case
Notably, Justice Manoj Jain issued notice after three Delhi High Court judges recused themselves from hearing the petition in the Chinese visa case. Justices Swaarna Kanta Sharma, Anup Jairam Bhambhani, and Girish Kathpalia all declined to hear the matter, though reasons for their recusals in the visa case were not specified in the order.
Background of Chinese Visa Case Allegations
In October 2024, the CBI filed a charge sheet in the visa case against Karti and others for their alleged involvement in facilitating visas for Chinese nationals of a power company in 2011. This period coincided with Karti’s father, P Chidambaram, serving as Union Home Minister, adding political sensitivity to the Chinese visa case.
The federal agency alleged in the visa case that the firm approached Karti, who used his influence to facilitate the visas in violation of the ceiling imposed on such approvals. This allegation forms the core of the corruption charges in the visa case.
Implications for Trial Proceedings
The High Court’s refusal to stay proceedings in the visa case means that Karti Chidambaram must now participate in the trial while simultaneously pursuing his challenge to the charge-framing order. This dual-track legal battle in the visa case creates both procedural complexity and strategic challenges for the defense.
As the visa case proceeds, it remains one of several corruption investigations involving the Chidambaram family, maintaining public and political attention on the outcome of this high-profile trial.
