The Delhi High Court on Friday set aside a Lokpal order allowing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to file a chargesheet against TMC Member of Parliament Mahua Moitra in connection with the cash-for-query row..A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar allowed Moitra's plea against Lokpal sanction and ruled that the Lokpal had erred in its order. The Court 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..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 and mandated that a copy be submitted to the Lokpal. The case stemmed 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.In her plea, Moitra argued that the Lokpal order was 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. .Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta, appearing for Moitra, stated that it was 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. .Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju had appeared for the CBI and told the High Court that the Lokpal order 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 with advocates Samudra Sarangi, Saloni Jain, Panya Gupta, Navya Nanda, Panchi Agarwal, Jimut Baran Mahapatra, Gur Simar Preet Singh, Bikram Dwivedi and Virti Gujral appeared for Mahua Moitra. ASG SV Raju with advocates Ripudaman Bhardwaj, Kushagra Kumar and Amit Kumar Rana represented the CBI. Senior Advocate Jeevesh Nagrath with advocates Rishi Kumar Awasthi, Amit V Awasthi, Piyush Vatsa, Ritu Arora, Avinash Ankit, Rahul Kumar Gupta and Prabhakar Thakur represented Nishikant Dubey, the complainant in the case. .Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.
