Cash For Query Row: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Lokpal's Order Granting Sanction For CBI Chargesheet Against Mahua Moitra

The Delhi High Court on Friday granted relief to Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra and set aside an order passed by the Lokpal of India granting sanction to the CBI to file chargesheet against her in relation to the cash for query row.

A division bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar passed the order. 

The Court ruled that the Lokpal of India erred in understanding the provisions of the Lokpal Act. It requested the Lokpal to accord consideration on the aspect of sanction within one month.

Appearing for Moitra, Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta had submitted that there was clear infirmity in the procedure adopted by the Lokpal as enumerated under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. Moitra is also represented by Advocate Samudra Sarangi.

Referring to Section 20(7) which demands the comments of public servant be obtained before granting sanction, Gupta said that Lokpal said that “I won't see any material at all” and granted sanction, which is in teeth of the statute.

On the other hand, ASG SV Raju appearing for CBI submitted that Moitra is not entitled for a oral hearing but was still given one by the Lokpal of India.

He said that it is a settled position of law that before granting sanction, the accused is not to be heard and can only give comments without any oral hearing.

Senior Advocate Jivesh Nagrath appearing for complainant Dubey submitted that Section 20 enumerates a complete scheme, and that the comments, as provided in the statute, were laid before the Lokpal.

Dubey was also represented by Advocates Rishi Awasthi, Amit Awasthi and Piyush Vatsa.

Mahua challenged the order passed on November 12, saying that the same is erroneous, de hors the provisions of the Lokpal Act and a gross violation of principles of natural justice.

It was her case that while arguments amd filings were invited from her, but they were completely ignored before issuing an order granting sanction under Section 20(7)(a) of the Lokpal Act.

The plea stated that the Sanction Order reduces the role of the Lokpal to merely “rubber-stamping of the Investigation Report”, without considering any defence whatsoever being offered by Moitra and granting sanction to file a chargesheet.

It added that the Lokpal has closed the door on the filing of a closure report without even considering the arguments and defence of Moitra and instead summarily accorded sanction for the filing of a chargesheet to her prejudice.

Moitra had been accused of receiving cash in exchange for posing questions on behalf of businessman and friend Darshan Hiranandani.

In an interview with The Indian Express, she had accepted the fact that she had provided her Parliament login and password details to Hiranandani, however, she had refuted the claim of receiving any cash from him.

The dispute arose after Dubey wrote a complaint to the Lok Sabha Speaker alleging that Moitra purportedly took bribes to ask questions in the Parliament. Dubey claimed that the genesis of the said allegations was a letter addressed to him by Dehadrai.

Moitra then sent a legal notice to Dubey, Dehadrai and media houses wherein she denied the allegations made against her.

Tile: MAHUA MOITRA v. LOKPAL OF INDIA & ORS