The Supreme Court directed the Allahabad HC to defer proceedings in the disproportionate assets case against Rahul Gandhi and barred the CBI from filing any report, questioning the lack of a hearing.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Allahabad High Court to defer the proceedings before it in a petition alleging that Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi holds assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, and restrained the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) — or any other authority — from submitting any report to the High Court in the meantime [Rahul Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others].
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana issued notice on Gandhi’s plea and passed the interim direction, pointedly questioning both why the High Court had acted without hearing him and why the investigating agencies, if the allegations were serious, had not acted on their own.
‘Courts are expected to follow the principle of natural justice’
The Bench’s first line of questioning went to the manner in which the High Court had passed its orders directing verification of the complaint. Observing that a court issuing a direction must comply with the audi alteram partem rule — the right of a person to be heard before an adverse order is passed against them — the Chief Justice remarked:
“Suppose somebody commits murders, etc. police does not need permission. But what appears to us is, subject to the assistance provided to us from both sides, if the Court wants to issue a direction, the courts are expected to follow the principle of natural justice.”
The point draws a distinction of some importance. An investigating agency does not need a court’s permission to look into a cognizable offence; but when a court itself steps in to direct an inquiry against a named individual, it is expected to hear that individual first. The Bench’s concern was that the High Court’s verification orders had been passed without giving Gandhi that opportunity.
READ MORE: Rahul Gandhi Moves Supreme Court Against Allahabad HC’s CBI, ED Verification Order
‘If it is so serious, why has your agency kept quiet?’
The Bench’s second line of questioning was directed at the agencies themselves. Observing that any agency with knowledge of disproportionate assets belonging to any person is free to proceed on its own without a court order, the Court noted that in this case the agencies had taken no such independent action.
Turning to Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, who appeared for the CBI, Justice Bagchi asked:
“If it is so serious, why has your agency kept quiet? Do you need a direction from the Court, Mr Raju? Have you taken any suo motu action? No, right?”
The exchange underscored the anomaly the Bench appeared to see: that a matter said to be grave enough to warrant a court-directed probe had not prompted the agency to act of its own accord, suggesting the impetus lay with the complainant and the High Court’s directions rather than with any independent agency assessment.
LIVE SUPREME COURT HEARING:
The orders under challenge
The complaint originates with S. Vignesh Shishir, a BJP worker, who moved the Allahabad High Court seeking a probe against Gandhi and members of his family over allegations of disproportionate assets. In May, a Division Bench of the High Court directed the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to verify those claims.
In a subsequent order on July 20, a Bench of Justices Brij Raj Singh and Rajesh Singh Chauhan expressed dissatisfaction with the CBI’s affidavit, recording:
“The counter affidavit of CBI does not appear to be a counter affidavit in terms of earlier order. Even we are unable to understand about the progress of the investigation done by the CBI.”
The High Court also recorded that the ED had taken the steps required of it and was free to proceed further should its inquiry yield material warranting action. It was those orders — the direction to verify and the monitoring of the agencies’ progress — that Gandhi challenged before the Supreme Court, along with a separate plea seeking transfer of the proceedings.
The parallel citizenship case
Shishir has separately pursued a distinct petition before the Allahabad High Court seeking criminal action against Gandhi over alleged violations of citizenship law, claiming that he held a British passport alongside his Indian one.
That litigation has had a turbulent course. The High Court at one stage directed the registration of an FIR against Gandhi, only for the judge to withhold that order and subsequently recuse himself from the matter after Shishir made certain posts on social media relating to the case. That petition, too, remains pending before the High Court.
It bears emphasis that the allegations in both matters — of disproportionate assets and of foreign citizenship — remain untested. No FIR stands registered against Gandhi in the assets case, no charge has been framed, and no court or agency has recorded any finding that the allegations are true. The verification the High Court directed is a preliminary step, and it is that very step the Supreme Court has now placed on hold.
What the order means
The practical effect of Monday’s order is to freeze the High Court proceedings at their current stage. With the Supreme Court having issued notice and directed that no report be submitted by the CBI or any other authority in the meantime, the verification exercise cannot advance until the apex court has heard and decided Gandhi’s challenge. The Bench’s two observations — on the absence of a hearing before the High Court and on the agencies’ own inaction — indicate the questions on which that challenge will turn when it is taken up.
CASE: RAHUL GANDHI Versus S. VIGNESH SHISHIR AND ORS. Diary No. 47728-2026