The Lokpal of India has moved the Supreme Court seeking a clarification with respect to the interpretation of Section 20 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, on grant of sanction to investigating agencies to file chargesheets and initiate prosecution against public servants suspected of having engaged in corruption [Lokpal of India vs Mahua Moitra].
The need for clarification arose after a December 2025 ruling passed by the Delhi High Court in the case relating to TMC Member of Parliament Mahua Moitra in connection with the cash-for-query row.
By this judgment, the High Court had quashed a Lokpal order allowing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to file a chargesheet Moitra.
In its plea before the Supreme Court, the Lokpal has questioned the Delhi High Court's interpretation of the Lokpal's powers to grant sanction under Section 20.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi today said it will comprehensively deal with the issue raised.
"We will comprehensively lay down the powers of lokpal and the statutory restrictions if any," said CJI Kant.
The apex court also clarified that the probe against Moitra will remain paused for now.
"We are not permitting prosecution as of now. What Lokpal wants is interpretation of Section 20 since they have been asked to carry out a composite exercise. We prima facie agree that it (High Court's interpretation) may be an incorrect interpretation of Section 20," said Justice Bagchi.
It added that the Lokpal need not comply with the High Court directive to decide within a month (extended by another two months in January) on whether a fresh sanction should be issued for the filing of chargesheet against Moitra.
The Supreme Court also sought a response from Moitra, the CBI and BJP leader Nishikant Dubey, who had first raised the the cash-for-query allegations Moitra.
"Issue notice (directing Lokpal to take a time-bound call on grant of fresh sanction). Let counter be filed in three weeks. Lokpal need not comply with Para 89 of the December 2025 judgment of the Delhi High Court," the Court ordered.
The matter arose from allegations that Moitra accepted cash and luxury gifts from Dubai-based businessman Darshan Hiranandani in exchange for raising parliamentary questions.
The Lokpal had earlier directed CBI to investigate “all aspects” under Section 20(3)(a) and submit a report within 6 months.
A full bench of the Lokpal later invoked its powers under Section 20(7)(a) read with Section 23(1) of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, allowing CBI to file a charge sheet and mandated that a copy be submitted to the Lokpal.
Moitra eventually moved the Delhi High Court Court challenging the Lokpal order granting sanction to the CBI to chargesheet her in the case.
She argued that the Lokpal order was contrary to Section 20 of the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013 and in violation of the principles of natural justice since the same was passed without considering her detailed written and oral submissions.
Her counsel told the High Court that the Lokpal had turned the law on its head by maintaining the it need only hear Moitra's response at a later stage. This violated Section 20 (7) of the Act, Moitra contended. Under this provision, the Lokpal was bound to hear her comments before it sanctioned the filing of a chargesheet, she argued.
The High Court quashed the Lokpal sanction by its December judgment, and asked the Lokpal to reexamine the issue as per the provisions of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act and take a fresh call within a month. This timeline was later extended by two months by an order passed in January this year.
This prompted Lokpal to approach the Supreme Court, questioning the correctness of the High Court's interpretation of Section 20 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act.
According to the Lokpal, the statutory scheme contemplates grant of sanction at two distinct stages.
The first stage relates to granting of approval to an investigating agency to proceed with the filing of a chargesheet after investigation.
The second concerns the grant of sanction for prosecution, before the case can proceed to trial.
On the other hand, the Delhi High Court had held that the Act contemplates only a single sanction, and on that basis set aside the Lokpal’s approval permitting the CBI to file a chargesheet against Moitra.
The Lokpal has now moved the Supreme Court seeking a clarification on this aspect, raising questions as to whether an accused public servant needs to be heard before grant of sanction in both stages.
During today's hearing, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta appeared for the CBI and argued that while the central agency supports the Delhi High Court's interpretation of Section 20, Moitra will still have to face criminal prosecution.
Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar represented the Lokpal and argued that it is only seeking a clarification on the law, and is not focusing on whether Moitra's case along.
"We are not here for an individual but for the interplay between different parts of the section," he said.
The Court noted that it would have to examine the interplay between various provisions within Section 20, in light of the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as relevant provisions of the law on criminal procedure, namely the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
"Lokpal Act is an act to ensure public confidence during enquiry investigation and prosecution of public servants, where there is a fear that Investigation agencies may be disabled from carrying out their statutory duty. Should not the Lokpal apply its mind on the fairness of investigation, on the conclusion of investigation and then give sanction? ... Let us examine the interplay of these Sections in light of BNSS and the Prevention of Corruption Act," Justice Bagchi said.
Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta appeared for Moitra.
[Live Coverage]