The Supreme Court has halted proceedings before the Allahabad High Court over allegations that Congress leader Rahul Gandhi possesses assets disproportionate to his known income, while questioning why investigating agencies had not acted independently if the allegations were considered serious.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant on Monday directed the High Court to defer its next hearing and restrained the Central Bureau of Investigation, Enforcement Directorate and other authorities from submitting reports pursuant to the High Court’s directions. The bench also comprised Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana.
The intervention came after Gandhi, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, challenged orders passed by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court in proceedings initiated on a petition filed by S Vignesh Shishir. The petitioner had sought an investigation into allegations concerning Gandhi’s assets.
During the hearing, Justice Bagchi questioned Additional Solicitor General S V Raju about the agencies’ response to the allegations. The court asked why the agencies had remained inactive if they believed the complaint disclosed serious wrongdoing and whether they required judicial directions before examining such claims.
The bench observed that investigating agencies do not ordinarily require permission from a court to act when information discloses a prima facie offence. At the same time, it indicated that when a constitutional court proposes to issue directions affecting an individual, principles of natural justice may have to be followed.
Raju told the bench that the CBI had so far been verifying the complaint and had not registered a First Information Report. He said the allegations required examination and that the legal position would change if the verification disclosed a cognisable offence.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Gandhi, challenged the manner in which the High Court proceedings had been conducted. He argued that Gandhi had not been given an opportunity to respond before directions were issued to the agencies and questioned the petitioner’s standing and bona fides.
Sibal characterised the proceedings as a legally unsustainable attempt to subject Gandhi to a broad inquiry. Gandhi’s petitions before the Supreme Court have also questioned the use of in-chamber hearings and sealed-cover material during the High Court proceedings.
Shishir, who appeared virtually before the Supreme Court, opposed Gandhi’s challenge. He argued that the matter was at the pre-FIR stage and maintained that a person facing possible investigation does not have a right to be heard before an FIR is registered.
The dispute originates from proceedings before a division bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising Justices Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Zafeer Ahmad. In May, the High Court directed the CBI and ED to examine the complaint and take steps permissible under law. It also asked several government authorities to submit responses regarding the allegations.
Those authorities included the Department of Personnel and Training, the Department of Revenue, the ministries of finance and corporate affairs and the Serious Fraud Investigation Office. The High Court asked that it be informed about progress on the complaint.
The CBI had told the High Court that it had received the complaint and would respond. The ED also indicated that the allegations would be verified.
On July 20, however, the High Court expressed dissatisfaction with an affidavit filed by the CBI, saying it did not adequately disclose the progress of the inquiry. It directed a senior CBI officer to submit a fresh affidavit. The court also noted that the ED could take action permitted by law if its examination produced material pointing to illegality.
The matter had been scheduled to return before the Allahabad High Court on August 20. The Supreme Court’s interim order means that hearing will not proceed until further directions from the apex court.
Gandhi has separately sought transfer of the proceedings away from the Allahabad High Court, with his legal challenge arguing that the process adopted there raises questions concerning procedural fairness. His petitions were filed through advocate-on-record Prasanna S.
