Cash For Query Row: Delhi High Court Reserves Order On Mahua Moitra's Plea Against Lokpal's Sanction For CBI Chargesheet, No Interim Relief

The Delhi High Court on Friday reserved order on a plea filed by Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra challenging 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.

“Arguments heard. Judgment reserved,” a division bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar said. 

However, no interim order has been passed on Moitra's application for stay on the sanction order.

The Court reserved the order after hearing in detail counsel appearing for Moitra, CBI and complainant before the Lokpal- Nishikant Dubey.

Appearing for Moitra, Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta 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.

“My option of closure under Section 20(7)(a) stands negated straightaway and denied to me. The reasoning given is that I have to give a second sanction under Section 20(8). Section 20(8) does not envisage a second sanction at all…. It cannot be that you grant sanction and say that I will see your documents at the stage of Section 20(7) or 20(8),” Gupta argued.

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.

“He cannot produce documents. The only right is to do comments. The Lokpal then can grant sanction to file chargesheet, which has been done in the instant case,” Raju said.

He added that the right to offer comments cannot be enlarged to production of documents.

Raju argued that the limited right Moitra has is to offer comments but she was heard before the Lokpal, which was “over and above” the mechanism stipulated under the Lokpal Act. Raju also appeared along with Advocate Ripudaman Bharadwaj.

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.

In rebuttal, Gupta showed five orders passed by the Lokpal, submitting that the legal position stated in those is what he was canvassing.

“The understanding of each of the orders passed by the Lokpal is that it is sanction for prosecution under Section 20(7) where we (Lokpal) have to see the entire material produced by the public servant,” he said.

“This is the only case where you say that I will only see the prayer of CBI,” he added, saying that Moitra has the right for being considered for closure of the matter under the statute.

After hearing the parties, the Court proceeded to reserve orders.

Mahua has 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 is 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 states 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.

“The Hon'ble Lokpal not only has the power to direct filing of a closure report under Section 20(7)(a) of the Hon'ble Lokpal Act, but has a duty to fairly consider the defence of the RPS at this stage itself so that a fair and reasoned decision is taken on whether the case necessitates the filing of a chargesheet or a closure report,” the plea states.

It adds 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