Cash for query: CBI opposes Mahua Moitra's plea against Lokpal order

The CBI on Friday opposed Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra’s petition in the Delhi High Court challenging a Lokpal order that allowed the agency to file a charge sheet against her in the alleged 'cash-for-query' case.

Arguing before a bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, additional solicitor-general S.V. Raju said Moitra had no legal right to place documents before the Lokpal during its proceedings.

Under the Lokpal Act, he said, a public servant under inquiry is allowed to submit written comments only, and is not entitled to an oral hearing. “But still the Lokpal went ahead and gave her an oral hearing,” he added, arguing that the Lokpal was well within its powers to grant sanction to the CBI to file a charge sheet, which it has now done.

The case stems from allegations that Moitra asked parliamentary questions against industrialist Gautam Adani and Prime Minister Narendra Modi in return for cash and gifts from businessman Darshan Hiranandani. After hearing both sides, the high court reserved its order on her challenge to the Lokpal’s sanction.

Raju described Moitra’s petition as “frivolous” and argued that it did not even merit the issuance of notice. He repeated that the only right Moitra had in law was to offer comments, and that the Lokpal had gone “beyond the statute” in granting her a personal hearing.

Moitra’s lawyers, senior advocate Nidhesh Gupta and advocate Samudra Sarangi, contested this view. They argued that the Lokpal had not followed the correct procedure under Section 20(7) of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, which requires the Lokpal to obtain and consider a public servant’s comments before granting sanction for prosecution.

Gupta told the court that despite being asked for submissions, the Lokpal later said it would “not look at any material at all” and still went ahead and cleared the charge sheet, which he said was “in the teeth of the statute”.

In her petition, Moitra has asked the high court to set aside the Lokpal’s 12 November order, calling it legally flawed, contrary to the Lokpal Act, and a “gross violation of natural justice”. She alleges that though the Lokpal invited her arguments, it ignored them entirely, termed them premature, and granted sanction without considering her defence. This, she argues, effectively turned the Lokpal into a “rubber stamp” for the CBI’s investigation report.

Moitra says the Lokpal not only has the power to order a closure report at this stage, but a duty to fairly weigh the public servant’s defence before deciding whether a case warrants prosecution or closure. By approving sanction without such consideration, she argues, the Lokpal shut the door on the possibility of closure and acted to her prejudice.

As interim relief, she has sought a stay on the sanction order and asked the court to restrain the CBI from filing any charge sheet while her petition is pending.

The CBI had submitted its report to the Lokpal in July in connection with the allegations against Moitra and Hiranandani. The agency had registered an FIR in March 2024 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, based on a Lokpal reference. The FIR alleged that Moitra took bribes and other benefits from Hiranandani, compromised her parliamentary duties, and shared her Lok Sabha login credentials, posing a national security risk, according to investigators.

Moitra was expelled from the Lok Sabha in December 2023 for “unethical conduct”, a decision she has challenged in the Supreme Court. She was re-elected from Krishnanagar in the 2024 general elections, defeating the BJP’s Amrita Roy.

The Lokpal acted after receiving a complaint from BJP MP Nishikant Dubey, who accused Moitra of accepting cash and gifts from Hiranandani to target Adani, PM Modi, and others through parliamentary questions.

With PTI inputs