Enforcement Directorate has submitted before a special court the prosecution sanction obtained from the competent authority against former Union Finance Minister and senior Congress leader P Chidambaram in connection with alleged money laundering linked to the Aircel-Maxis and INX Media cases.The agency informed the court that the required approval to prosecute Chidambaram under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act has been secured and formally placed on record, clearing a procedural hurdle that had delayed further proceedings. The development marks a significant step in long-running investigations that have spanned more than a decade and involved multiple agencies, including the Central Bureau of Investigation.
Chidambaram, who held the finance portfolio between 2004 and 2008 during the United Progressive Alliance government’s first term, has consistently denied wrongdoing. He has maintained that all decisions taken by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board were in accordance with established procedures and that he did not grant any unlawful favours.
The Aircel-Maxis case relates to the 2006 approval granted by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board for Global Communication Services Holdings Ltd, a subsidiary of Malaysia’s Maxis Communications, to invest in Aircel. Investigators have alleged that the investment exceeded the threshold that could be cleared by the FIPB and required approval from the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs. The prosecution case has centred on whether the then finance minister improperly approved the proposal and whether kickbacks were routed through associated entities.
In the INX Media matter, the allegations concern foreign investment approval granted in 2007 to INX Media Pvt Ltd, then promoted by Peter and Indrani Mukerjea. Authorities have contended that downstream investments were made without due clearance and that undue benefits were conferred. The Enforcement Directorate has alleged that proceeds of crime were generated and laundered through various transactions, including through companies allegedly linked to Chidambaram’s son, Karti Chidambaram.
Both P Chidambaram and Karti Chidambaram have been arrested in the past in connection with these cases and later granted bail by courts. The senior leader has described the investigations as politically motivated, arguing that no evidence of bribery or illicit enrichment has been produced despite years of scrutiny. Congress has echoed that stance, asserting that the cases are an attempt to target opposition figures.
Legal experts note that prosecution sanction is a statutory safeguard intended to protect public servants from vexatious litigation. The requirement ensures that an independent authority examines whether there is sufficient material to proceed before a court takes cognisance. Once such sanction is granted and placed before the court, the trial process can move forward, subject to judicial scrutiny.
The Aircel-Maxis case has seen a complex procedural history. In 2018, a special court had discharged Chidambaram and his son in a related corruption case investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation, citing lack of evidence to proceed. However, the Enforcement Directorate’s money laundering proceedings are distinct, as they are based on the alleged generation and concealment of proceeds of crime rather than solely on the underlying corruption charge. Appellate courts have also examined aspects of the discharge and the framing of charges over the years, contributing to delays.
Similarly, the INX Media case has involved multiple rounds of litigation, including challenges to arrest, custodial interrogation and bail. The Supreme Court granted bail to Chidambaram in 2019, observing that prolonged incarceration without trial was not justified at that stage. Courts have emphasised that findings at the bail stage do not amount to a determination on guilt.
The Enforcement Directorate’s move to place the prosecution sanction on record suggests that it intends to press for the framing of charges under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The special court will have to consider whether the material placed before it establishes a prima facie case warranting trial. Defence counsel are expected to contest the validity of the sanction and the sufficiency of evidence.
The cases have broader political and institutional implications. They unfold against a backdrop of debate over the use of central investigative agencies in high-profile financial and corruption matters. Opposition parties have argued that enforcement actions disproportionately target their leaders, while the government has maintained that agencies act independently and in accordance with the law.