Cash for query: HC sets aside Lokpal sanction for CBI chargesheet against Mahua Moitra

The bench asked the Lokpal to consider the aspect of sanction afresh as per the provisions of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 and take a call in one month

The Delhi high court on Friday set aside Lokpal’s order granting Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) the sanction to file a chargesheet against Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Mahua Moitra in the alleged cash-for-query case.

On November 12, the Lokpal had granted CBI the sanction to file a charge sheet within four weeks. (PTI photo)

On November 12, the Lokpal had granted CBI the sanction to file a charge sheet within four weeks, and mandated that a copy be submitted to Lokpal.

A bench of justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar asked the Lokpal to consider the aspect of sanction afresh as per the provisions of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 and take a call in one month.

“The impugned order is set aside,” the bench said while pronouncing the verdict.

A detailed copy of the verdict is awaited.

Moitra had approached the high court challenging the order asserting that the same had been issued without taking her defence in the form of detailed written and oral submissions into account, in disregard of the framework of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.

Her counsel Nidhesh Gupta submitted that there was an infirmity in the procedure adopted by the Lokpal while affording CBI the sanction to file the charge sheet. Gupta further submitted that the Lokpal while passing the order had categorically stated that it was only considering the material preferred by the CBI and her comments were imperative before passing the order.

“Consideration of my comments is necessary but the order says, I’m only going to consider CBI’s material. Our’s is the only case where they said that they’ll see prayers of the CBI. My right to be considered for closure is being denied to me by not considering any of my material,” Gupta added.

CBI, represented by additional solicitor general SV Raju, opposed the petition saying that the same was “frivolous.”

The law officer submitted that the decision was made after taking into account the comments and the written response Moitra had provided to the Lokpal and in compliance with Section 20(7)(a) of the Act, which requires the Lokpal to obtain the views of both the competent authority and the public servant before granting sanction to its prosecution wing or investigating agency to file a charge-sheet.

He further submitted that although Section 20(7) of the Act grants only a “limited right” to provide comments, the Lokpal went beyond this requirement by allowing Mahua to file detailed written submissions and by granting her an oral hearing prior to issuing the order.

“The matter is a frivolous matter. It does not even warrant passing an order for notice. Look at 20(7), it’s a very limited right.. (There is) no right to produce documents & that right has been complied with. Lokpal is only entitled to comments … Lokpal went beyond & granted oral hearing. Sanction has been granted after considering the comments,” Raju submitted.

He added, “(There has been) compliance of 20(7) in toto. Oral arguments are unheard of but still an opportunity was given to her to make an oral hearing. The decision was taken only after looking at the papers , only & above the comments…. Comments, affidavit, oral hearing, everything was given.”

He also argued that Moitra’s insistence to file documents was a ruse or a device to just delay the proceedings. “This is a ruse or a device to delay the proceedings. Statute only provides for a truncated right for comments…. Generally you don’t have a right. You have a limited right but you cannot ask for a right to file documents and then say that the order is not right because opportunity was not granted,” the law officer added.

Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) lawmaker Nishikant Dubey’s lawyer also defended Lokpal’s order saying that the body was under no obligation to adjudicate on the comments.

Moitra is accused of giving access to her official MP ID to Dubai-based businessman

Hiranandani to post questions on the Lok Sabha portal on her behalf and receiving expensive gifts from the businessman and funding her trips abroad. While Hiranandani has corroborated the charges, Moitra has denied the allegations that she received gifts, and has asked other parliamentarians if they never shared their passwords.

In October 2023, Dubey wrote to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on the basis of a complaint by lawyer Jai Anant Dehadrai, who alleged that Moitra accepted money and favours to ask questions in Parliament. The same month, he approached Lokpal over the “cash-for-query” charge against Moitra.

In March last year, the Lokpal had ordered the CBI to file a FIR against her, saying there was “sufficient prima facie evidence on record that deserved deeper scrutiny.” It had directed the federal probe agency to complete investigations in “all aspects of the allegations” against Moitra within six months. The CBI had then submitted its report to Lokpal.

Moitra, at the time, was the sitting MP from Krishnanagar in the previous Lok Sabha, but had been expelled from the House in December 2023, based on a recommendation by the ethics committee. She defeated her rival BJP’s Amrita Roy in the 2024 general polls, retaining her seat in the 18th Lok Sabha.