New Delhi: The Delhi High Court reserved its order Friday on Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Mahua Moitra’s plea challenging a Lokpal order granting sanction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to file a charge sheet against her in connection with the alleged cash-for-query row.
The case dates back to October 2023, when BJP leader Nishikant Dubey received a letter from advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, bringing corruption and bribery allegations against Mahua Moitra, who was accused of accepting cash and luxury gifts from Dubai-based businessman Darshan Hiranandani in exchange for raising questions in Parliament. The TMC leader was expelled from Lok Sabha in December that year.
The Lokpal has wide powers to direct an inquiry or probe and accord sanction for prosecuting public officials and others engaged in corruption under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. A 12 November order issued by the Lokpal sanctioned a CBI charge sheet against Mahua Moitra.
Challenging this order on grounds such as violation of natural justice principles and arguing that the Lokpal did not consider her detailed written and oral submissions, thereby violating the 2013 Act, the TMC MP’s plea has sought the setting aside of the order before the Delhi HC. If the order was not stayed by the court and the CBI proceeded with filing its charge sheet, it could cause irreparable harm and prejudice to Moitra, her plea argued.
Also Read: Lokpal, CAG to whistleblowers—why anti-graft warriors need a BMW ride during Modi govt
What the Lokpal order says
On 14 November, the Lokpal of India issued a letter to Mahua Moitra, referring to the 12 November order, stating that the CBI was granted the sanction to file a charge sheet against the TMC MP under Section 20(7) of the Lokpal Act. This section mandates that a bench of at least three Lokpal members shall consider every investigation report received from an agency, including Delhi’s Special Police establishment.
After obtaining the comments of the competent authority and the public servant, the Lokpal can either grant sanction to its prosecution wing or investigating agency to file a charge sheet or direct the closure of the report before the Special Court. Moreover, the Lokpal can direct the competent authority to initiate departmental proceedings or any other appropriate action against the public servant concerned.
Mahua Moitra’s plea before the Delhi HC, however, argued that the Lokpal’s order should be set aside since it was passed without considering any arguments or submissions made by her. She also emphasised that the Lokpal had said that her arguments could only be considered at a later stage and, at the time, it would be premature. The Lokpal’s sanction order, therefore, was erroneous, the TMC MP argued. It, she said, was against the provisions of the 2013 Act as well as the principles of natural justice.
Why CBI was granted sanction
On 21 October 2023, a complaint was filed against Mahua under the Lokpal Act, which made the Lokpal direct the CBI to initiate a preliminary inquiry a month later.
In February 2024, the CBI submitted a preliminary inquiry report to the Lokpal. After considering the report and the comments of the competent authority, the Lokpal passed an order in March 2024, directing the CBI to investigate the allegations outlined in the complaint.
In June this year, the CBI submitted its report to the Lokpal after completing the investigation against Mahua Moitra. Then, the Lokpal, only a month later, passed the order directing the TMC MP to respond with her comments to the CBI’s report.
Finally, Mahua Moitra sought permission from the Lokpal to address the oral arguments before him. She also sought all materials, including documents, statements, assessments and reports, which were collected and used by the CBI in its investigation.
The Lokpal allowed her plea for oral arguments and for extending the time for filing her response. However, it said her plea for production of CBI’s investigative material could only be considered after inviting the CBI’s comments.
After hearing detailed oral arguments in this case in October this year, the Lokpal reserved its order. But only days later, the Lokpal passed the November 12 order, granting its sanction to the CBI. Challenging this, Mahua Moitra filed her plea in the Delhi HC.
Arguments made in Delhi HC
Senior advocate Nidhesh Gupta, who appeared for Mahua Moitra, argued that the Lokpal’s understanding of the provisions of the Lokpal Act, specifically, Section 20(7) and Section 20(8), was fully incorrect and contrary to their direct words, meanings, and interpretations.
The latter provision allows the Lokpal, after taking a decision on the filing of the charge sheet, to direct its prosecution wing or an investigating agency to initiate prosecution in the Special Court for cases investigated by the agency.
“There is a clear infirmity in the procedure adopted by the Lokpal. I cannot see any material on the basis of which this sanction is granted. This is in the teeth of the statute,” Gupta said. The option of closure outlined under Section 20(7) was also denied to Mahua, he added.
It was also the case of the MP-petitioner that the sanction order under challenge essentially reduces the role of the Lokpal to a rubber-stamper of the CBI investigation report, without considering her defence. Thus, it is not only illegal and unreasonable but also required to be set aside, Mahua Moitra argued.
On the other hand, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju argued that the petitioners were making several misrepresentations. Section 20(7) of the 2013 Act, he said, required the Lokpal to just obtain comments from the public servant and the competent authority.
“Only comments are required to be given under the statute. The petitioners are putting words into the mouth of the Lokpal. Sanction is required usually before the stage of cognisance and not before the stage of filing a chargesheet (sic),” Raju told the court, clarifying that the Lokpal is only obliged to invite comments.
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)
Also Read: Five years on, Lokpal is now ‘god of small things’. It’s been catching ‘tiny fish’