SC defers Allahabad HC proceedings in assets complaint against Rahul Gandhi

The Supreme Court on Monday deferred proceedings before the Allahabad High Court in a petition seeking investigations by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) into allegations that Congress leader Rahul Gandhi possessed assets disproportionate to his income, LiveLaw reported.

Live Law reported that a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana also restrained the central agencies and other authorities from submitting reports to the high court under its earlier directions.

The order came on a petition filed by Rahul Gandhi challenging the high court’s direction to the CBI and ED to verify the allegations. After being informed that the matter was scheduled to come up before the high court on 20 August, the Supreme Court directed that the proceedings be deferred until further orders.

The Bench, as per Live Law, issued notices to the respondents and said: “Meanwhile, no report shall be submitted by the CBI or the ED or any other authority to the High Court pursuant to the impugned orders. The high court shall defer the next date of hearing till further orders.”

Rahul Gandhi has filed a separate petition seeking the transfer of the case from the Allahabad High Court to the Delhi High Court.

Appearing for the Congress MP, senior advocate Kapil Sibal described the high court proceedings as “unknown to law” and alleged that they amounted to a “witch-hunt through a process not recognised by law”.

Sibal questioned the standing and bona fides of Vignesh Shishir, who had filed the petition before the high court. He alleged that Shishir had repeatedly moved petitions against Rahul Gandhi and had not disclosed that he was an RSS worker. Sibal also referred to another High Court order that had reportedly criticised the petitioner.

Additional solicitor general S.V. Raju told the Bench that the CBI was merely verifying the complaint and had neither registered a first information report nor taken further action. Live Law said he described the allegations as serious and said the agency was required to examine them.

Shishir, who appeared virtually and argued in person, opposed Gandhi’s petition. He contended that an accused had no right to be heard before an FIR was registered. Sibal responded that Shishir had not filed a caveat in the Supreme Court.

During the hearing, the CJI observed that principles of natural justice would have to be followed before a court issued directions affecting a person.

“If police or any other agency has any prima facie case, they can register a case and proceed against anyone. They don’t require any permission from the court,” the CJI observed. However, if a court proposed to issue a direction, it was expected to follow the principles of natural justice, he added.

Raju argued that such principles did not apply at the pre-FIR stage. Sibal, meanwhile, said the CBI “must hold its horses” and alleged that sealed-cover reports submitted to judges in chambers had been leaked to the media.

The Bench also questioned why the agencies required directions from the high court if they considered the allegations sufficiently serious.

“If it’s so serious, why has your agency kept quiet? Do you require impetus from the court?” Justice Bagchi asked, adding that a court must record its satisfaction before issuing such directions.

In its contested order, the Allahabad High Court had said that if the petitioner’s complaint had been received, its allegations could be verified in accordance with the law. It asked the CBI and ED to take legally permissible steps and inform the court about the progress.

In a subsequent order dated 20 July, also challenged by Rahul Gandhi, the high court expressed dissatisfaction with the CBI’s affidavit and said it did not comply with its earlier directions. It noted that the ED had taken the required steps and could initiate appropriate legal action if its inquiry revealed relevant information.