In another setback to Chidambaram family, the Madras High Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition by Nalini Chidambaram, wife of Congress leader and former finance minister P Chidambaram, to quash the summons issued by Enforcement Directorate(ED) to appear as a witness in the money laundering probe in Saradha Chit Fund scam case.

Ms Nalini told the court that the ED cannot summon a woman for investigation out of her place of residence under CrPC Section 160. But justice S M Subramaniam who heard the petition, dismissed the contention of Nalini and observed that such exemptions are not mandatory and were subject to facts and circumstances of the case.

“Based on gender, exemption cannot be sought for in a routine manner,” justice Subramaniam said in his 145-page order on Nalini’s petition and that of the Enforcement Directorate seeking to vacate a stay granted by the court earlier. The justice also asked the ED to issue fresh summons for investigation and proceed with it in accordance with law.

Justice Subramaniam said in his verdict that the language used in CrpC 160 proviso is that “no women shall be required” to attend investigation at any place other than their residence. “Thus, it is not as if there is a total and absolute exemption of the appearance before the Investigating Officer,” said the justice.

In this case, the ED issued summons to Nalini asking her to present herself as witness in the Saradha Chit Fund scam case in its Kolkata office in September 2016. But immediately after that the Madras High Court by an interim order on 21 September, 2016, had stayed the summons based on a petition moved by Nalini.

The ED summons were based on the statement of Manoranjana Sinha, an accused in the Chit Fund scam, that Nalini was paid Rs one crore by the Saradha Group for her appearances in court and Company Law Board in connection with the purchase of a TV channel.

Nalini had argued that the summons served by the ED were politically motivated to damage her reputation. She said that all lawyers appearing for suspects in criminal cases charge professional fee. The ED submitted that Manoranjana Sinha had claimed that Rs 1 crore was given to Nalini as professional fee.

“The petitioner was summoned to verify the claim. The agency believes the fee was paid out of public money, or funds collected from public as chits”, said the ED.