The Delhi High Court has issued notice to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on a petition filed by Congress leader Karti Chidambaram questioning the legality of the order framing charges against him in the alleged Chinese visa scam.
The single-judge Bench of Justice Manoj Jain, however, declined to stay the ongoing trial proceedings at the interim stage. It agreed to examine the challenge on merits, while permitting the trial to proceed.
The petition was taken up on January 28 by Justice Jain after Justice Girish Kathpalia recused himself from the case earlier this month. The proceedings have previously seen multiple recusals, with Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma and Justice Anup J Bhambani also stepping aside.
Assailing the order of the Rouse Avenue Court, Chidambaram contended that the trial court failed to discharge its statutory duty at the stage of framing of charges and proceeded in a mechanical manner without evaluating the evidentiary record.
According to the petitioner, the impugned order disregarded material documents and witness statements that allegedly undermined the prosecution’s case and failed to disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged, thereby vitiating the finding of a prima facie case.
By an order dated December 23, 2025, Special Judge (CBI) Dig Vinay Singh directed the framing of charges against seven accused persons for criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, read with offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. One of the accused, Chetan Shrivastava, was discharged after the court concluded that the evidentiary threshold required to proceed against him was not satisfied.
The prosecution case traces its origin to allegations that illegal gratification was paid in 2011 to facilitate the grant of project visas to Chinese nationals employed by a power sector company. The alleged acts are stated to have taken place during the tenure of P. Chidambaram, father of the accused, as Union Home Minister. In its chargesheet filed in October 2024, the CBI alleged that Karti Chidambaram and others played a key facilitating role in securing visas by circumventing prescribed procedures in exchange for bribes.
The trial court had earlier declined to grant anticipatory bail to Chidambaram and other accused persons in 2022. While rejecting the plea, the Special Judge emphasised the seriousness and gravity of the allegations, the then nascent stage of the investigation, and the criminal antecedents attributed to certain accused. The court held that grant of pre-arrest protection would impede effective investigation, applying settled principles governing anticipatory bail as laid down by the Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab and P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement.
According to the prosecution, Chidambaram facilitated the issuance of visas to approximately 250 Chinese nationals after allegedly receiving illegal gratification exceeding ₹50 lakh. It has further been alleged that Talwandi Sabo Power Limited, a Vedanta Group entity involved in setting up a thermal power project in Punjab, paid ₹50 lakh to secure project visas for 263 Chinese workers.
Project visas, introduced in 2010 for the power and steel sectors, were governed by executive guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. While the framework permitted the initial grant of such visas subject to specified conditions, the prosecution has maintained that there was no provision for reissuance or extension in the manner allegedly facilitated in the present case, rendering the approvals irregular and contrary to law.
Parallel proceedings have also been initiated by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, treating the alleged corruption offences as scheduled offences for the purposes of money laundering prosecution.
The High Court’s decision to call for the CBI’s response without staying the trial reflects adherence to the well-settled principle that judicial interference at the stage of framing of charges is an exception rather than the rule. Consistent with precedents such as State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, and Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, courts have repeatedly held that an order framing charges warrants interference only where the allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence. The matter is expected to be examined further once the investigating agency files its reply.
The post Chinese visa scam: Delhi High Court issues notice to CBI on Karti Chidambaram plea appeared first on India Legal.