The Delhi High Court ruled that the Lokpal must mandatorily hear public servants before ordering any investigation. The Court quashed a corruption probe against a Railway officer for violating Section 20(3) and principles of natural justice.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has recently emphasized the importance of procedural fairness in investigations conducted by the Lokpal, ruling that public servants must be given an opportunity of hearing before any investigation is ordered.
This landmark decision came in the case of Mujahat Ali Khan v Lokpal of India Through Under Secretary.
ALSO READ: Lokpal in India: India’s Anti-Corruption Mechanism Explained Amid BMW Tender Controversy
Background of the Case
The case arose after a complaint was filed alleging bribery and manipulation of OMR answer sheets during a 2023 departmental promotion examination for railway officers. The Lokpal directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a preliminary inquiry, which subsequently led to a full-scale investigation. However, Railway Officer Mujahat Ali Khan, along with other officials, was not given a chance to respond before the investigation was ordered.
Khan was later allowed to submit comments after the CBI completed its investigation, but the Delhi High Court found this procedure inadequate.
Delhi HC’s Observations
A Division Bench comprising Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar highlighted that Section 20(3) of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, is mandatory and leaves no room for discretion. The Court stated:
- The prima facie satisfaction required to order an investigation can only be reached after considering the explanation of the concerned public servant.
- Skipping this step, especially when it results in an FIR or criminal investigation, violates the principles of natural justice.
- The Lokpal, being a quasi-judicial authority with powers carrying penal and reputational consequences, must act in strict compliance with statutory procedures.
ALSO READ: Why Is the Lokpal Buying BMWs? Public Outcry Over Rs.70 Lakh Car Tender
The Court stressed that non-compliance with these safeguards undermines administrative fairness and justice, especially since punishments under the Lokpal Act can include transfer, suspension, or attachment of assets.
The High Court set aside the Lokpal orders against Mujahat Ali Khan, declaring the proceedings vitiated for non-compliance with Section 20(3). However, the Court clarified that the Lokpal may initiate fresh proceedings, provided it strictly follows the legal procedure.
The Court stated,
“It is, however, made clear that the learned Lokpal shall be at liberty, if it so chooses, to initiate proceedings afresh against the Petitioner in accordance with law, strictly adhering to the procedure prescribed under Section 20 of the Lokpal Act.”
Appearance:
For Mujahat Ali Khan: Advocates Hitesh Kumar, Nishant Singh and Vishal Yadav
For Lokpal: Advocates Nishant Katneshwar and Vijay Singh
Case Title:
Mujahat Ali Khan v Lokpal of India Through Under Secretary
W.P.(C) 16035/2025, CM APPL.65698/2025 (for stay), CM APPL. 65699/2025 (for exemption) & CM APPL.65700/2025 (for exemption)
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Lokpal