Suspicion not enough: Delhi High Court quashes Lokpal order for CBI probe against DRI officer

The Delhi High Court noted that the Lokpal had directed a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, against Prasad and certain other customs department officials from Kolkata.

Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Renu Bhatnagar criticised the issuance of notices by the Lokpal to the petitioner without any discussion of his role. (AI-enhanced image)

Observation

• The Delhi High Court emphasised that orders passed by quasi-judicial authorities must be supported by clear and cogent reasons, especially when they affect the rights of individuals.
• It reiterated that mere suspicion or unsubstantiated allegations cannot form the basis of a finding of prima facie satisfaction.
• The court further held that the Lokpal failed to disclose any concrete or verifiable material or identify any infirmity in the preliminary inquiry report, which had found no material against the petitioner.
• It also underscored that where the preliminary CBI inquiry, along with the concurrence of the Director General of Vigilance and approval of the Finance Minister, favoured the petitioner, the Lokpal was required to record specific reasons for taking a contrary view.
• The Delhi High Court also criticised the issuance of notices to the petitioner without any discussion of his role, observing that such mechanical action undermines the statutory framework and reflects non-application of the mind.
• It allowed the petition and quashed the Lokpal’s order of July 24, 2025, against the petitioner, holding that it was arbitrary, unsupported by material, and in violation of the statutory mandate.

Background

The case arose from a complaint filed before the Lokpal in September 2024 by an individual allegedly linked to a large smuggling syndicate operating through multiple dummy firms, against whom several show-cause notices involving substantial financial demands had already been issued.

It was further mentioned that at the relevant time, Shashi Shekhar Prasad was serving as a senior intelligence officer in the DRI under the Ministry of Finance, and he was part of the investigation team involving the said matter. The complaint lodged on September 13, 2024, before the Lokpal, accused him and some other officials of corruption, misuse of office and other misconduct.

Subsequently, the Lokpal directed a preliminary inquiry by the CBI. However, the CBI, after conducting the inquiry, found no material against Prasad, though it did not absolve certain other officials.

These findings were subsequently concurred with by the Director General of Vigilance (DGoV) and were also accepted by the Finance Minister as the competent authority.

Despite these findings, the Lokpal issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner and later directed a CBI investigation against him, stating that the preliminary inquiry had brought forth counter-allegations supported by verifiable facts.

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached the Delhi High Court.

Discretion of Lokpal

Appearing for Prasad, senior advocate Apurv Kurup argued that the CBI had exonerated the petitioner after the completion of the preliminary inquiry since they did not find any material against him.

Kurup further added that the Lokpal was required to indicate specific reasons, material or infirmities in the preliminary report and material available against the petitioner, constituting a prima facie case for directing an investigation.

It was further submitted for the petitioner that though the alleged acts of bribery and threats were committed in 2019, the complaint, based on which the said order was passed, was made against the petitioner only in 2024, after a delay of five years.

On the contrary, representing the Lokpal, Advocate Nishant R Katneshwarkar submitted that the Lokpal has the discretion to either direct an investigation by the CBI, or initiate departmental proceedings or any other appropriate action against the concerned public servants by the competent authority, or for closure.

It was further submitted that the Lokpal is not bound by the preliminary inquiry report of the CBI and has the power to form an independent view .