NEW DELHI: Supreme Court Monday barred CBI, ED or any agency from filing any report on any probe into the alleged disproportionate assets of leader of opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi before Allahabad HC, which had directed the two central agencies to probe allegations in a PIL on his alleged illegal wealth.Arguing for Rahul and challenging the July 20 order of HC’s Lucknow bench, senior advocate Kapil Sibal told a bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana that the HC had adopted a process which is “completely unknown to law” in passing the impugned order
If claim is so serious, why did agencies need HC prod: SC
Kapil Sibal said HC did not even seek Rahul Gandhi’s response and permitted a witch-hunt without questioning the locus standi of the petitioner, Vignesh Shishir, an RSS/BJP worker.Appearing for CBI, additional solicitor general S V Raju said, “CBI has done nothing yet. We are only verifying the complaint. We have not registered even a preliminary enquiry. The allegations are very serious. We are inquiring into it.” Sibal said, “CBI can do what it likes. We are not concerned with it.”Justice Bagchi said, “You (CBI) did not do it on your own. Suo motu action we would have understood. Why did you need the prodding of high court to investigate? If it is so serious, why did the agencies keep quiet and need impetus from HC?”The bench issued notices to Shishir, CBI, ED, UP Police, Union ministry of home affairs, CBDT and Serious Fraud Investigation Office and said, “Meanwhile, no report shall be submitted by CBI or ED or any other authority to the HC pursuant to its July 20 order.”Sibal sought a stay on proceedings before HC, leading the bench to request HC to defer the scheduled Aug 20 hearing till further orders. Appearing in person, Shishir spoke in favour of HC’s procedure, and said the matter was still in the preliminary enquiry stage where the accused cannot have a say.Raju said, “As far as the allegations are concerned, if they make out a cognisable offence, it stands on a different footing. We are yet to lodge an FIR. What action is to be taken has not yet been considered.”CJI Kant said, “On our understanding of the law, police or any probe agency, if they have prima facie material, they can register a case, investigate it, and can proceed against anyone. No permission is required from the accused. But what appears to us, subject to assistance from both sides, is that if the court wants to issue a direction, it is expected to follow principles of natural justice.”
Share your thoughts in the comments
Be respectful · TOI community guidelines
Raju said it was not required in a criminal case. Sibal interjected and said, “The enthusiasm of the agencies is clear.” Raju retorted, “Facts may be wrong or right. But if they are right, it is a gross case of disproportionate assets.” Sibal said these were sealed cover, in-chamber proceedings and asked how they got reported in newspapers.In his plea, Rahul said, “Since 2024, Shishir, who it appears from public reporting is a member of BJP — a party whose politics and ideology the petitioner (Rahul) and his party (Congress) vehemently contests — has instituted multiple proceedings before different forums, including successive PILs on petitioner’s alleged foreign citizenship, criminal proceedings seeking registration of an FIR…”
