The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Allahabad High Court to defer further proceedings in a petition alleging that Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi possesses assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana also directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and any other concerned authority not to submit any report before the High Court in the matter until further orders.

The Supreme Court questioned the manner in which the High Court had proceeded without providing Gandhi an opportunity to be heard.

“Suppose somebody commits murders, etc., police does not need permission. But what appears to us is, subject to the assistance provided to us from both sides, if the Court wants to issue a direction, the courts are expected to follow the principle of natural justice,” the CJI observed.

The Bench further noted that if any investigating agency has information regarding disproportionate assets held by an individual, it is empowered to initiate an inquiry on its own without requiring a prior court direction.

The Court observed that, in the present case, no agency appeared to have independently initiated such proceedings.

“If it is so serious, why has your agency kept quiet? Do you need a direction from the Court, Mr Raju? Have you taken any suo motu action? No, right?” Justice Bagchi asked Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, who appeared for the CBI.

In May, the Allahabad High Court had directed the CBI and Enforcement Directorate (ED) to verify allegations made by BJP worker S Vignesh Shishir against Gandhi and members of his family.

Shishir had approached the High Court seeking an investigation into allegations concerning Gandhi's assets.

The High Court subsequently directed the CBI to submit a fresh affidavit outlining the status of its inquiry. In its July 20 order, the High Court expressed dissatisfaction with the CBI's response and observed that it was unable to ascertain the progress of the investigation.

The High Court also noted that the ED had taken the necessary steps and could proceed further if its inquiry revealed material warranting action.

Gandhi challenged these directions before the Supreme Court.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Gandhi, questioned the locus of Shishir to maintain the proceedings before the High Court and alleged that the petition amounted to a “witch hunt”.

Sibal also pointed out that Shishir had not disclosed his credentials while approaching the High Court.

He argued that the CBI had merely verified the complaint and had not undertaken any independent investigation.

The Supreme Court, meanwhile, focused on the fact that Gandhi had not been heard before the High Court passed directions concerning the allegations.

Shishir argued that the matter was still at a pre-FIR stage and, therefore, Gandhi was not entitled to a hearing at that stage.

“This is a simple pre-FIR stage case, my lord... the accused doesn't have any right to be heard in the pre-FIR stage,” he submitted.

Sibal also raised concerns over media reports concerning proceedings that were allegedly conducted under confidentiality, questioning how details of sealed-cover proceedings had appeared in newspapers.

The bench of Justice Bagchi observed that the allegations raised in the petition were matters that investigating agencies could examine independently if they found any violation of law. According to the Bench, the agencies did not necessarily require a judicial direction to initiate such an inquiry.

The Supreme Court consequently ordered that proceedings before the Allahabad High Court be deferred and restrained the CBI or any other authority from submitting a report to the High Court in the meantime.

Shishir has also filed a separate petition before the Allahabad High Court seeking criminal action against Gandhi over alleged violations of citizenship laws. The petition claims that Gandhi held a British passport in addition to his Indian passport.

The High Court had initially directed registration of an FIR in that matter. However, the direction was subsequently withheld, and the judge recused himself after Shishir allegedly made social media posts concerning the proceedings.

That matter remains pending before the High Court.