Special CBI Judge Asks Aakar Patel Not To Leave Country Without Prior Permission

The court also put a stay on Thursday’s order asking the CBI director to tender a written apology to Patel.

A special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) judge on Friday, 8 April, directed Aakar Patel, chair of the Amnesty International India board, not to leave the country without the court's prior permission.

(Photo altered by The Quint)

A special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) judge on Friday, 8 April, directed Aakar Patel, chair of the Amnesty International India board, not to leave the country without the court's prior permission.

This comes a day after Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Pawan Kumar of Rouse Avenue Court asked the CBI to withdraw the Look Out Circular (LOC) against Patel. The CBI had sought a revision of the ACMM's order.

The court also put a stay on Thursday's Delhi court order directing the CBI to file a compliance report by 4 pm on Friday, and asking the CBI director to tender a written apology to Patel.

The matter is now slated to be heard on 12 April at 11 am.

Pointing out that "due opportunity will be given to the respondent to file a reply if any," the court said:

"In the meantime, it is necessary that the cause is not frustrated."

Thus, the special CBI judge directed:

• Stay operation of impugned order vis-a-vis direction to CBI director for compliance as well as stay on "observations made in the latter part of the order specially with regard to written apology"

• The respondent (Aakar Patel) will not leave the country without permission of this court

During the course of the hearing, the court had also remarked:

"There has to be a reasonable time to a party, who feels that the order isn't favourable, to approach the authority. The remedy is there."

WHAT DID THE CBI'S COUNSEL CONTEND?

Appearing for the CBI, Advocate Nikhil Goel told the court that no time had been given to the agency to challenge the ACMM’s order.

According to LiveLaw, he also argued:

• The court had on Thursday interpreted the right to issue the LOC incorrectly

• The IO’s “subjective assessment”, which led to the opening of the LOC, cannot be interfered with

"To say that because I haven't arrested somebody and that no LOC can be issued is against the basic purpose of issuing an LOC. We are dealing with a situation where there is a gap between end of investigation and beginning of proceedings before the court."

Advocate Nikhil Goel

Further, Goel had sought for certain remarks made regarding functioning of the agency to be quashed.

WHAT DID THE PATEL'S COUNSEL SAY?

Meanwhile, Advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir, appearing for Patel, submitted that:

• The IO was informed in the Court that Patel would leave by midnight

• ACMM directed the IO to inform the authorities immediately

BACKGROUND

This development comes after Patel, on Thursday night, was stopped by the immigration authorities at Bengaluru airport from boarding his flight to the United States of America (USA) for the second time, despite the ACMM order.

The ACMM had, on Thursday, also ordered the CBI to file a compliance report by 4 pm on Friday and said that certain directions had been issued to the CBI with regard to the same.

Further, noting that Patel's counsel had sought compensation for the loss caused to the applicant and that in the present case, "apart from the monetary loss, the applicant had suffered mental harassment," the court, in its order, had asked the Director of CBI to tender an apology.

"The court is of the considered opinion that in this case, a written apology from the head of the CBI, ie Director, CBI, acknowledging the lapse on the part of his subordinate, to the applicant, would go a long way in not only healing the wounds of the applicant but also upholding the trust and confidence of the public in the premier institution."

ACMM Pawan Kumar

The LOC Is in connection with a case against Amnesty International, India, which pertains to alleged irregularities in foreign funding and a violation of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) in 2019.

(With inputs from LiveLaw and Bar and Bench.)