Supreme Court Dismisses Lokpal's Challenge To Delhi HC Quashing Enquiry Order Against Defence Secretary In NPC Promotion Case

The Supreme Court recently refused to entertain a plea filed by the Lokpal of India against the Delhi High Court's quashing of its order for a CBI preliminary enquiry into alleged irregularities in recruitment and promotions within the National Productivity Council.

The High Court had quashed the order, holding that before forming a prima facie opinion regarding an action under Section 20(3) of the Lokpal and Lok Ayukta Act, the Lokpal must give an opportunity of hearing to the public servant. The High Court had set aside the Lokpal's order passed in July 2024 directing a CBI preliminary enquiry into the allegations against Defence Secretary Rajesh Kumar Singh during his tenure in 2023 as the Secretary of the DPIIT, under which the NPC functions.  

The bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana dismissed the Lokpal's challenge to the High Court's view, after hearing Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar (for the Lokpal), Senior Advocate Vikas Singh (for the respondents) and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.

In view of an observation by the High Court in its order that the Lokpal would be at liberty to proceed against the respondents as per Section 20 of the Lokpal Act, the bench found no reason to interfere and disposed of the plea.

During the hearing, Ranjit Kumar contended that after a closure report from the Investigating Officer, the Lokpal may sometimes feel that something needs to be examined and issue a show-cause notice. Under similar circumstances, the Lokpal issued a show-cause to the respondents, but they obtained a stay. Later, they filed a plea before the Lokpal contesting maintainability of the complaint, however, the same was rejected and the rejection order never challenged.

The senior counsel further pressed that the Defence Secretary was the appellate authority under the relevant rules. The SG however remarked, "not deciding an appeal can never be a crime...would the Hon'ble Lokpal consider going into such trivial issues?"

Hearing the submissions, Justice Bagchi noted that there was no case made out on dereliction of duty. "We have seen the underlying facts. Atleast in our estimation, they do not amount to a dereliction of duty of sorts. Maybe in advisory role, which the Secretary has been holding, [he] wanted to get a better view of the appellate authority".

The judge further said that "bordering on corruption" should be understood differently from "error of judgment". "There is an error of judgment in all probability, not a case of bordering on corruption", he added.

Considering the nature of the allegations, the CJI questioned the Lokpal whether in its view there was an element of criminality made out even if the allegations were taken to be true on face value. "See the danger to you as an institution also. If you start issuing notice in such matters, you will be extremely overburdened. People will not spare you even for the smallest issue." the CJI said.

Justice Bagchi further conveyed that the "next palpable step" for the Lokpal had been opened by the High Court in para 29 of its order (allowing Lokpal to proceed in terms of Section 20). "If a public servant does not respond to your notice, what will you do?" Justice Bagchi asked Ranjith Kumar. "I can go and file an FIR," he replied.

The judge then added, "That is exactly what we are telling you. Please don't stick to logic. Explore it. If para 28 and 29 are read together, your hands are not tied to go to the next stage."

Justice Bagchi also noted that the impact of not having a pre-decisional hearing is likely to impact a person (public servant) against whom the order may be passed. Though the respondent claimed that he had not been given a pre-decisional hearing, the High Court had given the Lokpal liberty to proceed in terms of Para 29. "We don't understand the controversy", the judge remarked.

To recap, vide the impugned order, the High Court observed that in terms of Section 20(3) of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, the Lokpal must first give an opportunity of hearing to a public servant before formation of a prima facie view and directing investigation.

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 High Court said.

Apparently, the Lokpal 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 respondents.

Criticizing 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.

Case Title: LOKPAL OF INDIA Versus RAJESH KUMAR SINGH AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 8888/2026