Lokpal Can't Form Prima Facie Opinion On Alleged Corruption Before Hearing Public Servant: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court recently quashed an order of the Lokpal of India for probe into alleged irregularities in recruitment and promotions within the National Productivity Council, stating that the authority had pre-judged the case.Section 20(3) of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013 provides that the Lokpal shall, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the concerned public servant,...
The Delhi High Court recently quashed an order of the Lokpal of India for probe into alleged irregularities in recruitment and promotions within the National Productivity Council, stating that the authority had pre-judged the case.
Section 20(3) of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013 provides that the Lokpal shall, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the concerned public servant, decide whether a prima facie case exists and thereafter proceed to direct an investigation.
A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed, “The statutory sequence is unequivocal that the hearing must precede the formation of the prima facie view.”
In the present case however, the Lokpal after setting out the factual matrix and making substantive observations on the merits of the allegations, proceeded to express categorical views that the matter warrants a “deeper probe” to “unearth” alleged illegalities “bordering on corruption”.
“Such language is neither tentative nor exploratory; it unmistakably conveys the crystallisation of a prima facie opinion,” the judges said.
The Lokapal had issued notices for hearing the grievance of the public servant accused, but only after the recording definitive findings in that a “prima facie” case existed against the Petitioners.
Criticisng the process adopted, the High Court said,
“Section 20(3) cannot be actuated by suspicion, however grave, or by rhetorical apprehension; it must rest upon a crystallised prima facie conclusion formed after hearing the concerned public servants…protections embedded in the Lokpal Act occupy a central and indispensable position, and the statute must be implemented strictly in the manner mandated by Parliament.”
Reliance was placed on Mujahat Ali Khan v. Lokpal of India where the Court recently held that Lokpal of India cannot order an investigation against a public servant without affording him an opportunity of hearing.
The procedural framework, the Court explained, attains significance when viewed in light of the “far-reaching inquisitorial and investigative powers” vested in the Lokpal under Section 20.
“The exercise of these powers carries immediate and serious civil, reputational, and potentially criminal consequences for the public servant concerned. It is for this reason that the statute embeds, at multiple stages, mandatory safeguards ensuring fairness, transparency, and adherence to the Principles of Natural Justice.”
As such, the impugned order and consequential notices were quashed and set aside.
Appearance: Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Varun Singh, Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Ms. Kajal Gupta and Ms. Somesa Gupta, Advocates for Petitioners; Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar & Mr. Vijay Singh, Advocates for Respondent
Case title: Rajesh Kumar Singh & Ors. v. Lokpal Of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1649
Case no.: W.P.(C) 1264/2025