New Delhi: In a big relief to TMC MP Mahua Moitra, the Delhi High Court Friday set aside a Lokpal order which permitted the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to file a chargesheet in the high-profile “cash-for-query” case against her, holding that the anti-corruption watchdog had fundamentally misconstrued the scope of its powers under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
In a detailed 44-page judgement uploaded late Friday evening, a division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar ruled that the Lokpal had adopted a procedure “wholly alien” to the statute by effectively splitting the sanction process into multiple stages not contemplated by law.
Moitra had challenged the Lokpal’s 12 November order before the HC, which allowed her plea a month after reserving the verdict. It set aside the Lokpal order but clarified that the investigation itself has not been quashed. It directed the Lokpal to examine the issue afresh within one month, strictly in accordance with the statutory framework, as interpreted by the high court, and to take a fresh decision.
The case stems from allegations levelled by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Nishikant Dubey, who had filed a complaint against Moitra relying on a letter written by advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai in October 2023. The complaint accused Moitra of engaging in corruption and misconduct by sharing her Lok Sabha member portal login credentials with Dubai-based businessman Darshan Hiranandani.
It was alleged that Hiranandani used the credentials to post parliamentary questions that served his business interests. In return, Moitra was accused of receiving Rs 2 crore in cash, luxury items such as Hermes scarves and Bobbi Brown makeup kits, and assistance with the renovation of her officially allotted bungalow in New Delhi.
Moitra admitted to letting Hiranandani use her Lok Sabha login credentials but denied allegations of taking bribes.
Acting on the complaint against her, the Lokpal had ordered a preliminary inquiry, followed by a full-fledged investigation by the CBI under Section 20(3)(a) of the Lokpal Act. The CBI was directed to investigate “all aspects” of the allegations and submit its report within six months.
Moitra was expelled from the Lok Sabha on 8 December, 2023, following the recommendation of the Ethics Committee. She, however, officially returned to Parliament as MP last year after winning the Krishnanagar seat in the 2024 general elections.
Also Read: When Mahua Moitra speaks in Parliament, Lok Sabha TV goes from low definition to Ultra HD
Lokpal’s sanction order
Following the submission of the investigation report, a full bench of the Lokpal invoked its powers under Section 20(7)(a) read with Section 23(1) of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, allowing the CBI to file a chargesheet against Moitra. However, the Lokpal simultaneously mandated that a copy of the chargesheet be submitted to it and deferred the final sanction to “initiate prosecution” to a later stage under Section 20(8).
The Lokpal justified this approach as a matter of “abundant caution”, contending that the statute permitted two distinct stages, one for granting permission to file a police report and another for sanctioning the initiation of prosecution.
This interpretation became the central issue before the high court.
Judicial review & Lokpal role
At the outset, the HC emphasised the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, noting that courts should not lightly interfere with factual determinations made by specialised statutory bodies such as the Lokpal.
However, the bench clarified that where a statutory authority “clearly departs from the procedure expressly mandated by the statute”, judicial intervention becomes necessary.
The bench said the Lokpal is not an “adjudicatory” authority and cannot assume the role of a trial court. It observed that the Lokpal’s role is confined to acting as a “supervisor”—deciding whether a case is fit to proceed to investigation or prosecution—not to assess guilt or conduct a detailed examination of evidence.
“This power cannot be expanded to justify the conduct of a mini-trial or a detailed adjudication on the merits of the investigation report,” the court held.
In a revision of the powers of Lokpal, it said that “Lokpal is confined to deciding whether to grant sanction for prosecution or to direct the filing of a closure report or initiating the departmental proceedings, strictly on the basis of the investigation report and the comments received… Lokpal is not empowered to conduct a roving inquiry or a mini-trial.”
A key finding in the judgement relates to the interpretation of Sections 20(7)(a) and 20(8) of the Lokpal Act. The bench categorically rejected the Lokpal’s view that Section 20(8) permits a second or deferred sanction after a chargesheet has already been authorised.
The court held that “Lokpal has completely erred in treating Section 20(8) of the Lokpal Act as providing for a second round of sanction”. It explained that “the language of Section 20(8) is clear and unambiguous and does not, in any manner, confer discretion upon the learned Lokpal to grant another sanction once a sanction has already been accorded under Section 20(7)(a) of the Lokpal Act”.
Terming the Lokpal’s approach a form of “statutory ingenuity or re-engineering”, the bench observed that there was “no rationale, either textual or purposive, for construing the Lokpal Act as providing for multiple or successive stages of sanction”.
The court also clarified the institutional role of the Lokpal in the investigative process. It noted that the Lokpal is “not enabled to have its own Investigation Wing”.
For the purpose of investigation, it said, the Lokpal is “empowered to direct investigating agencies, such as the CBI, to conduct the investigation and submit an investigation report under Section 20(6) of the Lokpal Act. This position is evident from the reading of Sections 20(3)(a) and 20(1)(b) of the Act”.
“The investigation, therefore, in appropriate cases, is consigned to scrutiny by an independent external body as an additional safeguard,” the bench further observed.
A ‘clear departure’
Senior advocate Nidhesh Gupta, along with advocates Samudra Sarangi, Saloni Jain, Panya Gupta, Navya Nanda, Panchi Agarwal, Jimut Baran Mahapatra, Gur Simar Preet Singh, Bikram Dwivedi and Virti Gujral, appearing for Moitra, argued that the statute permits the Lokpal to grant sanction only after considering the written comments of the public servant concerned, and only at a single, final stage.
They explained the circumstances relating to the alleged use of parliamentary login credentials, clarified the nature of Moitra’s relationship with Hiranandani, set out the background and context of the exchange of gifts, categorically denied any monetary transactions, and highlighted the fact that the Committee on Ethics, Lok Sabha, had already examined the matter and taken institutional action.
On the other hand, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the CBI, defended the Lokpal’s order as being in accordance with law and passed out of abundant caution.
Rejecting the Lokpal’s interpretation, the HC held that the impugned order represented a “clear departure” from the procedure mandated under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act and reflected a misunderstanding of the statute’s scheme.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Also Read: ‘Memsahib’ Mahua Moitra is bringing what Indian Parliament never had: a call out culture