In a major relief to Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, the Delhi High Court on Friday (19th December) set aside an order of Lokpal allowing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to file a chargesheet against her in connection with the cash-for-query row.
A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar allowed Moitra’s plea against the Lokpal order and held that the Lokpal erred in understanding the provisions of the Lokpal Act. The court granted the Lokpal one month to reconsider its order, which was passed on 12th November.
The impugned order was passed by a full bench of the Lokpal by invoking its powers under Section 20(7)(a) read with Section 23(1) of the Lokpal and Lokayukts Act, 2013. It allowed the CBI to file a chargesheet against Moitra and submit a copy of the same before it.
In her plea challenging the order, Moitra claimed that the Lokpal order was contrary to the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013, and the principles of natural justice. She said that the order was passed without considering her detailed written and oral submissions.
Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta, representing Moitra, said that the law provides that the Lokpal can sanction the filing of a chargesheet only after considering the comments submitted by the individual against whom the criminal case is sought to be registered. Gupta added that Section 20(7)(a) of the Act lays down a procedure for the filing of a closure, which requires Lokpal to first consider the comments of the individual. “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,’ Gupta said. He added that there was an error in the procedure adopted by Lokpal. “It’s as if the Lokpal is reading some other Act. The Act says black and he [Lokpal] sees white,” he stated.
Opposing Moitra’s plea, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju apprised the High Court that the Lokpal order was passed in compliance with the law. Raju pointed out that the Act allows a limited right to the accused, who are only entitled to submit their comments before the Lokpal decides on the sanction.
“Before sanction, it is the settled position of law that the accused need not be heard. The statute does not provide that an oral hearing is required at all. Oral arguments are unheard of… Comments were called, and that is all that is warranted,” Raju said, adding that the Lokpal allowed Moitra an oral hearing despite not being warranted by the Act to do so.
The case arose after BJP MP Nishikant Dubey submitted a complaint against Moitra to the Lok Sabha speaker. In the complaint, Dubey accused Moitra of compromising parliamentary privileges by sharing her Lok Sabha login credentials with billionaire businessman Darshan Hiranandani, potentially posing a national security risk. Moitra admitted allowing Hiranandani to access her parliamentary IDs, claiming that MPs regularly let their assistants file questions on the Sansad portal. However, she denied receiving any cash or gift from Hiranandani.
