The CBI on Tuesday asserted that the Supreme Court could not grant former Union minister P. Chidambaram any special privileges in the INX Media case, cautioning that any order on his plea against judicial remand would set a “bad precedent”.

The central investigative agency said the “personal liberty of ordinary citizens” was “no less important” than that of the senior Congress leader.

The contentions came in an affidavit the CBI moved against the special leave petition (SLP) Chidambaram had earlier filed in the top court challenging his August 21 arrest by the agency and a special court’s remand order.

On Monday, Chidambaram’s counsel Kapil Sibal had made an oral mention pleading for interim bail or house arrest instead of judicial remand, which would be humiliating for the 74-year-old veteran.

The CBI contended that if the top court directly entertained Chidambaram’s plea against judicial remand, common citizens should be entitled to similar relief.

“Generally all SLPs challenging the (denial of) bail/anticipatory bail are, therefore, not allowed to be listed immediately on mentioning before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India unless extraordinary and special reasons are shown,” ,” the affidavit said.

“If this Hon’ble Court were to entertain the SLP directly against the order of the special judge… all… litigants… will be entitled to file similar petitions… as the personal liberty of other citizens… would not be less important than that of the petitioner (Chidambaram).”

The CBI filed the affidavit on a day the bench of Justices R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna extended till September 5 the CBI custody of Chidambaram, since it would have a bearing on the other petition Chidambaram has filed.

The former minister has in that plea challenged Delhi High Court’s denial of anticipatory bail in the money-laundering case the Enforcement Directorate has filed.

The INX Media case relates to alleged bribery.

The CBI argued that any remand order by the special CBI court can be challenged only in the high court and the petitioner couldn’t directly approach the Supreme Court under Article 136, which empowers the top court to grant right of appeal to a litigant against any judgment, decree or order.

The agency said it was “a settled legal position that this Hon’ble Court would not invoke its constitutional discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136… directly against an order of the special judge”.

It recalled the ruling of a five-judge constitution bench in the Bihar Legal Support Society Vs Chief Justice of India (1986) case where the court had held that normally the high court was the final arbiter in matters concerning bail or anticipatory bail.

“It is respectfully submitted that the present SLP is bereft of merit and hence warrants no intervention by this Hon’ble Court,” the CBI said.