The Delhi High Court on Friday set aside an order issued by the Lokpal permitting the Central Bureau of Investigation to file a chargesheet against Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra in connection with a cash-for-query row, Bar and Bench reported.
A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar ruled that the anti-corruption ombudsman had made an error in understanding provisions of the Lokpal Act, Live Law reported.
It directed the Lokpal to reconsider the sanction for prosecution in accordance with the law within a month.
The case against Moitra, the legislator from West Bengal’s Krishnanagar constituency, stems from allegations that she shared her login credentials to the Parliament website with businessman Darshan Hiranandani and accepted gifts in exchange for asking questions in the Lok Sabha.
Moitra has admitted to sharing her Parliament login details with Hiranandani but denied receiving any cash or gifts.
The allegations against the Trinamool Congress MP were made in October 2023 by Bharatiya Janata Party MP Nishikant Dubey and advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, her estranged partner. Dubey also filed a complaint with the Lokpal, accusing Moitra of taking cash for bribes.
The anti-corruption ombudsman had directed the CBI to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the matter, following which the central agency submitted its report in February 2024. In March 2024, the Lokpal directed the CBI to investigate the allegations made against Moitra.
This report was submitted by the central agency to the Lokpal in June, The Indian Express reported.
In August, Moitra was directed by the Lokpal to provide her comments to the report.
It passed the sanction order on November 12 after also granting her an opportunity for a hearing.
Moitra challenged the order allowing the CBI to file a chargesheet, arguing that it grossly violated the principles of natural justice, Live Law reported.
In her petition, she contended that her submissions, both written and verbal, were ignored before the sanction was granted.
Her petition also said that the sanction order reduced the role of the Lokpal to merely “rubber-stamping of the investigation report”, The Hindu reported.
Her counsel pointed out that under Section 20(7) of the Lokpal Act, the anti-corruption ombudsman was required to consider the comments and submissions of the accused before granting sanction for prosecution.
However, the CBI, represented by Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, submitted that Moitra was not entitled to a oral hearing by the Lokpal but was still given one, Live Law reported. Raju added that the law only required the accused to submit comments.
You’ve read Scroll.
Now help sustain it
Scroll is funded by readers, not corporate owners. If you believe our work matters, support our newsroom. Become a member today!
We’re not driven by clicks or corporate interests – just honest, independent reporting. Keep us going. Support Scroll today!