In Rahul Gandhi assets case, Supreme Court’s big order

The proceedings before the High Court began with a complaint filed by Karnataka-based S Vignesh Shishir.

What Rahul Gandhi said

Appearing for Gandhi, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal said what is happening is “unknown to law” and that it amounted to a “witch hunt through a process not recognised by law.”

The senior counsel also questioned Shishir’s bona fides and locus standi, saying he had not disclosed his credentials. Sibal added that he is an RSS worker and has been filing petitions against Rahul Gandhi year after year.

Shishir, appearing through video conferencing, said that although he had reached the SC complex, he was not issued a pass to attend the proceedings in person.

To a query from the bench, he said he had not received the copy of the paper book to oppose the prayer being made by Gandhi. He urged the court to supply him with the documents and fix a date to hear it.

What CBI said

Appearing for CBI, Senior Advocate S V Raju said the agency “has done nothing except verifying the complaint.” He added that “if correct, they are serious allegations”.

“As far as the allegations concerned, if they make out a cognisable offence, it stands on a different footing. If they do not make out a cognisable offence, it stands on a different footing. Whether to register an FIR, what action is to be taken (is yet to be decided),” the law officer added.

The CJI said, “As we understand the law, police or any other agency, if they have any prima facie evidence, they can register a case; they can proceed against anyone. They don’t need permission from the accused. But what appears to us, subject to both sides assisting us, if the court wants to issue a direction, it is expected to follow the principles of natural justice.”

“I am only on the facts; facts may be right, facts may be wrong, but if the facts are right, it’s a gross case of disproportionate assets,” Raju said.

Sibal also questioned how the proceedings before the Allahabad High Court, which took place in chambers, appeared in newspapers. “These are sealed cover procedures. How do newspaper reports happen?” he asked, adding that either the complainant or the agencies would have leaked it.

Justice Bagchi asked Raju, “Have you done it (looking into the allegations) suo motu?”

Raju answered in the negative, to which Justice Bagchi said, “Then let us examine the correctness of this order”.

The law officer said the agency would not oppose it if the complaint was frivolous.

“If it’s so serious, why has your agency kept quiet? Do you require impetus from the court? Your agencies have statutory powers,” Justice Bagchi observed.

The court directed that the documents be supplied to the petitioner at his email address so that he can also be heard on the next date of hearing.