© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The Delhi High Court Tuesday said it will hear on November 21 a plea by Lok Sabha MP Mahua Moitra challenging a Lokpal order granting sanction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to file a chargesheet against her in the alleged cash for query case.
With the Lokpal’s November 12 order granting sanction to CBI furnished in sealed cover to the division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, the court recorded that the matter be listed on Friday “to enable the bench” to go through the order.
Moitra is seeking that the Lokpal order be quashed and set aside. She is also seeking that a stay be granted on the operation of the Lokpal’s order in the interim, and that the court restrain the CBI from taking action against her during the pendency of the plea before the Delhi HC.
Moitra is accused of allegedly sharing her Parliament login credentials with businessman Darshan Hiranandani for bribes, both in terms of cash and expensive gifts. The TMC MP had admitted she gave her Parliament login and password details to Hiranandani but denied taking any cash from him.
A timeline of the case
In October 2023, BJP MP Nishikant Dubey had complained to the Lokpal, accusing Moitra for cash-for-bribes, following which the Lokpal had directed CBI to conduct a preliminary enquiry (precursor to an FIR) in the matter.
In February 2024, the CBI submitted its report. In March 2024, the Lokpal ordered a formal investigation by the CBI into the complaint.
The CBI submitted the report to the Lokpal in June this year; the next month, Moitra was directed by the Lokpal to provide her comments to the CBI’s investigation report. After granting Moitra an opportunity of hearing, the Lokpal passed the sanction order on November 12.
What has Moitra said?
The MP has objected to the Lokpal’s order, submitting in her plea that such a sanction order has been passed without taking into consideration her submissions and filings before the Lokpal “and a gravely prejudicial step like filing of a chargesheet has been taken against (Moitra) without any consideration of the submissions made against the grant of sanction under the provisions of Section 20(7) of the Lokpal Act…”
Section 20 (7) of the Act deals with Lokpal’s grant of sanction to its prosecution wing or probe agency to file chargesheet or direct closure of report before a special court against a public servant, or direct the competent authority to initiate departmental proceedings or other action against a public servant, only after Lokpal considers “every report received by it… from any agency (including the Delhi Special Police Establishment) and after obtaining comments of the competent authority”.
According to Moitra, the sanction order has been passed on an “erroneous assumption that the process under Section 20(7) of the Lokpal Act merely involves rubber stamping of a report filed by the investigating agency, instead of proper and due application of mind before issuing an order granting sanction…”
Moitra claimed the Lokpal refused to consider her submissions while issuing the sanction order. The Lokpal, however, reasoned that her submissions would be considered at a later stage, under Section 20(8) of the Lokpal Act.
Section 20 (8) of the Act states that the Lokpal, after taking a decision on sanction to file chargesheet, may direct its Prosecution Wing or any investigating agency (including the Delhi Special Police Establishment) to initiate prosecution in the Special Court in respect of cases investigated by the agency.
