New Delhi [India], February 13 : The Delhi High Court on Thursday passed an interim order directing the trial court not to call the prosecution witnesses linked with Congress MP Karti Chidambaram for examination.
Karti has challenged the framing of charges against him in the CBI case arising from the Chinese Visa scam. The trial court is recording Prosecution evidence after framing the charges.
Justice Manoj Jain passed a direction that no witness regarding Karti will be called to record evidence, and that only a formal witness may be called.
The bench has listed the matter for hearing further arguements on behalf of Karti Chidambaram on March 19.
Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra alongwith Advocates Arshdeep Singh and Akshat Gupta, appeared for Karti Chidambaram. It was submitted that the trial court is recording the prosecution's evidence. The right of the petitioner may be prejudiced as he is before the High Court in revision against the framing of charges.
The High Court, on January 28, issued notice on the plea filed by Congress MP Karti Chidambaram. The petition assails the trial court's order dated December 23, 2025, by which Chidambaram was directed to face trial.
The plea contends that there is a complete absence of essential ingredients required to invoke Sections 8 and 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as well as Section 204 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been argued that there is nothing on record to even remotely indicate any demand or acceptance of illegal gratification.
Appearing on advance notice, the Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI sought a short date to file a brief reply and status report, which the court permitted.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra had submitted that the charge under Section 204 IPC relating to the destruction of documents or electronic records to prevent their production as evidence is wholly unsustainable and unsupported by any material on record.
For context, charges have been framed against Chidambaram for criminal conspiracy, destruction of evidence, and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act relating to bribing a public servant and bribing a public servant by a commercial organisation.
In his plea, Chidambaram has stated that the trial court failed to appreciate that the material and documents on record present an entirely different picture. It is claimed that the alleged conspiracy was the brainchild of approver Vikas Makharia, who allegedly misused the permissible provision for re-use of project visas for personal gain and later sought to shift blame onto other accused.
The petition further asserts that no public servant has been identified as having been influenced or sought to be influenced.
Two public servants examined by the CBI have categorically stated that no attempt was made to influence them. The only other public servant named in the chargesheet, Adarsh Swaika, an officer posted at the Indian Embassy in Beijing, was neither investigated nor examined, as sanction under Section 17A of the PC Act was declined on three occasions.
The plea also challenges the trial court's observation that Sections 8 and 9 of the PC Act would apply even if the alleged bribe was paid for a legal act. According to the petitioner, this finding is contrary to the prosecution's own case that the alleged payment was made to secure permission for re-use of visas in violation of the Visa Manual.
Earlier, the Rouse Avenue Court on December 23 framed charges against Karti Chidambaram and other accused persons in the case. Special Judge (CBI) Dig Vinay Singh had framed charges for criminal conspiracy and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Charges were also framed against chartered accountant Bhaskar Raman.
The case relates to alleged corruption in the renewal of visas of 263 Chinese officials. The CBI has alleged that a gratification of ₹50 lakh was paid by an accused firm for the renewal of visas earlier issued to Chinese nationals.