The Supreme Court on Monday directed the deferral of proceedings in the Allahabad High Court in a petition seeking CBI and ED investigations against Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi on a complaint alleging that he possessed assets disproportionate to his income.

Hearing a petition filed by the Congress MP against the Allahabad High Court's direction to the CBI and the ED to verify the allegations, the Supreme Court further restrained both the central agencies from submitting any report to the High Court. The bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, on being informed that the High Court has posted the matter next on August 20, directed that the proceedings in the High Court will stand deferred till further orders. Gandhi has also filed a separate petition seeking the transfer of the proceedings from Allahabad High Court to the Delhi High Court.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for Rahul Gandhi, submitted that the High Court proceedings were "unknown to law" and that it amounted to a "witchunt through a process not recognised by law." Sibal questioned the locus standi and the bona-fides of the petitioner before the High Court, saying that he was repeatedly filing petitions against Rahul Gandhi. Sibal submitted that the petitioner in the High Court suppressed that he was an RSS worker, and that there was another order by the High Court criticising him.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju submitted that the CBI was only verifying the complaint and termed the allegations "very serious", which the agency has to examine. "We have done nothing. We have not registered any FIR. It is a serious allegation," the ASG said.

Vignesh Shishir, the petitioner in the High Court, appeared in person virtually, and opposed Gandhi's petition. He contended that as per settled principles, an accused has no right to be heard before the registration of an FIR. Sibal submitted that Shishir has not filed any caveat.

The ASG reiterated that the CBI was only verifying the allegations and if any cognizable offence is revealed, the matter will stand on a different footing.

The CJI observed that the Court has to follow the principles of natural justice before passing any order. "As we understand the law, if police or any other agency has any prima facie case, they can register a case and proceed against anyone. They don't require any permission from the Court, right? But, in what appears to us, subject to hearing both sides, if the Court wants to issue a direction, the Court is expected to follow natural justice principles," the CJI said.

The ASG said that principles of natural justice do not apply at the pre-FIR stage. Sibal submitted that the CBI "must hold its horses" and asked, "what was their interest in it?" The senior counsel alleged that the sealed cover reports submitted by the agency in chambers were leaked to the press. "Who revealed them? The Judges should be concerned," Sibal said.

When the ASG said that the CBI was only examining a complaint, the bench asked why the CBI or the ED should wait for any Court directions if there was any grave allegation. "If it's so serious, why has your agency kept quiet? Do you require impetus from the court? When the Court has to say something, it has to record a satisfaction," Justice Bagchi observed.

Ultimately, the bench issued notice on the petitions to the respondents, and passed the interim order.

"Meanwhile, no report shall be submitted by the CBI or the ED or any other authority to the High Court pursuant to the impugned orders. The High Court shall defer the next date of hearing till further orders," the Court stated in the order.

In the impugned order, the High Court observed, "It is expected that if the complaint of the petitioner has been received, the allegations of the complaint may be verified as per law. It is needless to say that the C.B.I. or E.D. may take appropriate steps which are permissible under the law."

The High Court then directed the agencies to apprise the Court of the progress. In a subsequent order passed on July 20, which is also challenged by Gandhi, the High Court expressed dissatisfaction with the CBI's affidavit, saying that it was not in terms of its earlier direction. The Court further observed that the ED has taken the required steps, and said that the ED can take the necessary legal action if it receives any information during the investigation. The High Court then posted the matter for further consideration on August 20.

Gandhi has also filed a separate transfer petition in the Supreme Court seeking the transfer of the matter from the Allahabad High Court to the Delhi High Court.

The petitions were filed through AoR Prasanna S.

Case : RAHUL GANDHI Versus S. VIGNESH SHISHIR AND ORS. Diary No. 47728-2026 (and connected case)