The Delhi High Court on Friday granted significant relief to Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra by setting aside an order of the Lokpal of India which had granted sanction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to file a chargesheet against her in connection with the alleged cash-for-query controversy.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar passed the order, holding that the Lokpal had misconstrued and misapplied the provisions of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. The Court has directed the Lokpal to reconsider the issue of sanction afresh, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of one month.

Appearing on behalf of Mahua Moitra, Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta contended that the procedure adopted by the Lokpal was fundamentally flawed and contrary to the statutory framework under the Lokpal Act. Moitra was also represented by Advocate Samudra Sarangi.

Drawing attention to Section 20(7) of the Act, which mandates obtaining and considering the comments of the public servant concerned before granting sanction, Gupta argued that the Lokpal had explicitly stated that it would not examine any material at all before according sanction. Such an approach, he submitted, was directly in violation of the statute.

Opposing the plea, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the CBI, argued that the accused has no legal right to an oral hearing at the stage of grant of sanction. He submitted that although Moitra was not entitled to an oral hearing, the Lokpal had nonetheless afforded her one. According to the ASG, the settled position of law is that at the sanction stage, the accused may only submit comments and cannot insist on being heard orally.

Senior Advocate Jivesh Nagrath, appearing for the complainant Nishikant Dubey, submitted that Section 20 of the Lokpal Act constitutes a complete code in itself and that the comments contemplated under the statute had indeed been placed before the Lokpal. Dubey was also represented by Advocates Rishi Awasthi, Amit Awasthi and Piyush Vatsa.

Moitra had challenged the Lokpal’s order dated November 12, contending that it was erroneous, dehors the provisions of the Lokpal Act, and violative of the principles of natural justice. She asserted that although she was invited to file submissions and advance arguments, the same were entirely disregarded while granting sanction under Section 20(7)(a) of the Act.

Her plea further argued that the sanction order effectively reduced the Lokpal’s role to that of a mere “rubber stamp” approving the investigation report, without any independent application of mind or consideration of the defence put forth by her. It was contended that the Lokpal prematurely foreclosed the possibility of a closure report by summarily granting sanction for filing of a chargesheet, causing serious prejudice to her rights.

Mahua Moitra has been accused of receiving monetary benefits in exchange for raising questions in Parliament on behalf of businessman and acquaintance Darshan Hiranandani. In an interview to The Indian Express, Moitra had acknowledged that she shared her Parliament login credentials with Hiranandani, but categorically denied receiving any cash or illegal gratification from him.

The controversy originated after Nishikant Dubey addressed a complaint to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, alleging that Moitra accepted bribes to raise parliamentary questions. Dubey claimed that the allegations were based on a letter written to him by Jai Anant Dehadrai.

Subsequently, Moitra issued legal notices to Dubey, Dehadrai and several media houses, denying all allegations levelled against her and disputing the claims made in public domain.

Case Title: Mahua Moitra v. Lokpal of India & Ors.