The Delhi High Court has reserved its judgment on TMC MP Mahua Moitra’s plea challenging the Lokpal’s sanction for the CBI to file a chargesheet in the alleged cash-for-query controversy. The case draws nationwide attention.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has reserved its judgment on the plea filed by Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Mahua Moitra challenging the Lokpal’s sanction allowing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to file a chargesheet against her in the alleged cash-for-query controversy.
Background of the Case
The case originates from allegations made by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Nishikant Dubey, claiming that Moitra accepted cash and luxury gifts from Dubai-based businessman Darshan Hiranandani in exchange for raising parliamentary questions.
Earlier, a full bench of the Lokpal had authorized the CBI to file a chargesheet within four weeks, mandating that a copy of the chargesheet be submitted to the Lokpal. The agency had already been directed to investigate all aspects of the case under Section 20(3)(a) of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 and submit a report within six months.
Court Proceedings
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju, representing the CBI, defended the Lokpal’s order, stating that it was passed in accordance with the law and out of abundant caution.
Raju argued that under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, the accused only has the right to submit written comments before the Lokpal decides to sanction the filing of a chargesheet. According to him, no oral hearing is required under the statute.
“Before sanction, it is the settled position of law that the accused need not be heard. Oral arguments are unheard of… Comments were called, and that is all that is warranted,”
Raju told the court.
ALSO READ: Mahua Moitra Moves Supreme Court Against Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025
On the other hand, Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta, representing Moitra, contended that the Lokpal failed to consider her submissions, which he said was a violation of principles of natural justice. Gupta stated:
“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 further emphasized that Moitra’s comments should have been reviewed before granting sanction, citing Section 20(7)(a) of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act.
Read More Reports On Mahua Moitra