Cash-for-Query: Delhi HC sets aside Lokpal sanction against Mahua Moitra

The Delhi High Court set aside the Lokpal's order sanctioning a CBI chargesheet against TMC MP Mahua Moitra in the cash-for-query case. The court, noting the Lokpal "erred," has directed it to reconsider the matter within one month.

Delhi High Court Overturns Lokpal Sanction

The Delhi High Court on Friday allowed Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Mahua Moitra's challenge to the Lokpal sanction in the Cash-for-Query Case. The High Court set aside the order passed by the Lokpal.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar allowed Moitra's plea. While pronouncing the judgement, the bench said, "We are of the view that Lokpal erred in deciding the issue." The High Court has directed the Lokpal to reconsider the issue within a month. The detailed order of judgement is to be uploaded by the High Court later today.

Arguments in Court

TMC MP Mahua Moitra had challenged the Lokpal of India's order sanctioning the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to file a chargesheet against her in the alleged cash-for-query case. Moitra had assailed the Lokpal's November 12 order, which granted sanction to the CBI to proceed against her.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta, appearing for Moitra, sought an interim stay on the CBI proceedings. However, the Court declined to grant any interim relief at that stage.

Moitra's Contentions

Moitra had contended that the Lokpal granted sanction without duly considering her written submissions, despite having invited her comments and also permitting oral arguments. Her counsel argued that the Lokpal termed her comments as "premature" while simultaneously stating that they would be considered at a later stage, which, according to her, violated Section 20 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act.

It was further submitted that the Lokpal erroneously invoked Section 20(8) instead of Section 20(7), which specifically governs the grant of sanction for prosecution.

Opposition's Stance

Opposing the plea, Additional Solicitor General S. V. Raju, appearing for the CBI, argued that Moitra had no statutory right to an oral hearing and was only entitled to submit written comments, which she had done. He submitted that the Lokpal exceeded its statutory mandate by granting her an oral hearing and additional time to file affidavits, thereby fully complying with the law.

The CBI termed the challenge frivolous and maintained that the proceedings before the Lokpal were conducted strictly in accordance with law. Counsel appearing for the complainant also opposed the plea, asserting that Moitra was afforded all opportunities required under the statute.

Case Background and Court's Earlier Observations

Earlier, the High Court had observed that it required time to examine the entire Lokpal order, which was produced before it in a sealed cover. The Bench noted that Moitra's grievance related to non-consideration of her submissions but emphasised that the order had to be assessed in its entirety and not through selective excerpts.

The case stems from a complaint filed in October 2023 by advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai. Following the complaint, the Lokpal referred the matter to the CBI, which submitted a preliminary report in February 2024 and a detailed investigation report on June 30, 2024. Moitra was subsequently asked to file her comments in July and was granted additional time, access to records, and an oral hearing. After hearing her submissions in October, the Lokpal granted sanction to the CBI on November 12.

Moitra has urged the High Court to quash the sanction order, alleging that the Lokpal failed to independently evaluate whether the matter warranted a chargesheet, a closure report, or departmental action, and that the decision is arbitrary, unlawful, and violative of the principles of natural justice. (ANI)

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)