No complaint is to be filed for now: the Delhi High Court has kept in abeyance its October 6 direction for a Complaint Against Six CBI Officers over an allegedly false statement made to a court, while it decides recall applications by two of them who say they were never properly heard.
New Delhi: A direction to the Special Judge (CBI) to file a written complaint against six former and serving Central Bureau of Investigation officers is on hold, with the Delhi High Court keeping it in abeyance on applications by two of the officers who seek recall of the judgment on the ground that it was passed without hearing them [Ashok Kumar Aggarwal v. Sushil Dewan & Ors.].
Justice Mini Pushkarna passed the order on November 3, 2026 and listed the matter for hearing on February 4, 2027. The October 6 judgment had been delivered by Justice Madhu Jain.
Where the case began
The CBI had prosecuted Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, a former IRS officer, for allegedly possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. In January 2016, the High Court held the sanction for his prosecution invalid and he was discharged. The CBI considered appealing to the Supreme Court, but the Ministry of Law and Justice opined in June 2016 that there was no reasonable ground to do so, and the Department of Personnel and Training conveyed this to the CBI in July 2016.
When Aggarwal later sought the return of documents seized during the investigation, the CBI’s reply of August 2, 2016 said correspondence with the Ministry on further legal action was “under way”. The High Court, examining successive drafts of that reply, found that an earlier draft expressly recorded the DoPT’s rejection of the proposal to appeal, and that this was deleted and replaced with a handwritten assertion that correspondence was under way. It held the change was not an “imprecise choice of words” and rejected reliance on the CBI’s corrected reply of August 9, 2016.
The October 6 direction
On that material, the Court recorded a prima facie inference:
“The respective acts of preparing, altering, vetting, processing, approving and filing the reply, read with the knowledge disclosed by the preceding drafts and file-notings, furnish a reasonable basis for the prima facie inference that the concerned officers participated in advancing a claim which was known to be inconsistent with the existing position.”
Finding a “reasonable foundation” for the allegation and that an inquiry was “expedient in the interests of justice”, the Court allowed Aggarwal’s plea and directed the filing of a complaint. The direction named Sushil Dewan, Vineet Vinayak, Amit Kumar, Raman Tyagi, Prem Kumar Gautam and Md Azad. The finding against them was prima facie, made for the purpose of directing an inquiry, and they are entitled to the presumption of innocence.
What the two officers argue
Former CBI officers Sushil Dewan and Raman Tyagi moved the recall applications, supported by the CBI. They argued that the judgment was passed without hearing them. Only Dewan was a party to the appeal, and he said notice had been served on a wrong email ID. The other five officers named in the direction were never issued notice. With the direction now in abeyance, no complaint is to be filed against any of the six until the Court decides the applications.
Why the order matters
A direction to prosecute officers for a false statement before a court carries consequences for their careers and liberty, and the principle that no one should be condemned unheard applies with special force. By putting the direction on hold, the High Court has kept the October 6 findings intact on paper while giving the officers who say they were never heard a chance to answer them. Whether the direction survives will be decided after the hearing in February.
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Aggarwal v. Sushil Dewan & Ors.
Bench: Justice Mini Pushkarna, Delhi High Court
Date of Order: November 3, 2026
Earlier Judgment: October 6, 2026 (Justice Madhu Jain)
Next Hearing: February 4, 2027