Delhi High Court reserves verdict on Mahua Moitra plea against Lokpal sanction for CBI chargesheet; no stay

The Delhi High Court on Friday reserved its verdict in the plea filed by TMC Member of Parliament Mahua Moitra challenging the Lokpal order sanctioning the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to file a chargesheet against her in the alleged cash-for-query row. .A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar also refused Moitra's counsel's request to restrain the CBI from filing a chargesheet, till the time the Court decides the matter. A full bench of the Lokpal had 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 within four weeks, and mandated that a copy be submitted to the Lokpal. The case stems from accusations by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Nishikant Dubey that Moitra accepted cash and luxury gifts from Dubai-based businessman Darshan Hiranandani in exchange for raising parliamentary questions. Lokpal had earlier directed CBI to investigate “all aspects” under Section 20(3)(a) and submit a report within 6 months..It reached media before us: Delhi High Court on Mahua Moitra plea against Lokpal sanction.Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju appeared for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) today and told the Delhi High Court that the Lokpal order sanctioning the agency to file a chargesheet against Moitra in the alleged cash-for-query row was passed following the law and by way of abundant caution. Raju defended the order today, arguing that the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 grants a very limited right to the accused and they are only entitled to submit their comments before the Lokpal decides on sanctioning an agency to file a chargesheet. No oral hearing is required, he said.“Before sanction, it is the settled position of law that the accused need not be heard. The statute does not provide that oral hearing is required at all. Oral arguments are unheard of… Comments were called, and that is all that is warranted,” Raju said. .Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta, appearing for Moitra, stated that it is clear from the statute that the Lokpal can sanction the filing of the chargesheet only after considering the comments submitted by the person against whom the criminal case is being sought to be registered. He said that Section 20(7)(a) of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act provides for a direction to the investigating agency to file a closure report as well, and that can be done only after the Lokpal considers the comments made by the person. “The closure [of proceedings] has to be only after you consider my material… See the consideration [in the Lokpal order]. My material has not been considered at all. Not a single word in consideration,” he said. He said that the investigation in the case is complete and that there is a clear infirmity in the procedure adopted by the Lokpal.“It’s as if the Lokpal is reading some other Act. The Act says black and he [Lokpal] sees white,” he said. Gupta added that the Lokpal has clearly said that it will not examine Moitra’s comments. “Before you grant a sanction, you have to consider my submission. You can’t say it will be considered at the stage of 20(8) [of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act],” he said. .In her plea, Moitra argued that the Lokpal order is contrary to 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. When the matter was taken up for the first hearing on November 18, the Bench had flagged that the case and its details were reported in the media before it could be heard by the Court. .Moitra filed the petition through advocate Samudra Sarangi. Senior Advocate Jeevesh Nagarath along with advocates Rishi K Awasthi, Amit V Awasthi and Piyush Vats appeared for complainant Nishikant Dubey..Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.