The Delhi High Court set aside an order of the Lokpal of India that had granted sanction to the Central Bureau of Investigation to file a chargesheet against Member of Parliament Mahua Moitra in connection with the alleged cash-for-query case. The Division Bench held that the Lokpal had not properly followed the statutory procedure prescribed under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act while granting sanction for prosecution. The Court found that the manner in which the sanction was accorded suffered from procedural infirmities and could not be sustained in law.
The matter arose after the Lokpal granted permission to the CBI to file a chargesheet against Moitra and directed the agency to complete the process within a fixed timeframe. This decision was challenged before the High Court on the ground that the Lokpal failed to meaningfully consider the submissions and comments submitted by the public servant concerned before granting sanction. It was argued that the sanction process had been reduced to a mechanical exercise, contrary to the safeguards built into the statutory scheme.
The High Court examined the relevant provisions of the Lokpal Act and observed that the law requires the Lokpal to seek and consider the comments of the public servant before deciding whether to grant sanction for prosecution. The Court noted that this requirement is not an empty formality but a substantive safeguard intended to ensure fairness and due application of mind. The Bench found that although comments had been sought from Moitra, the impugned order did not reflect proper consideration of those submissions.
The Court rejected the contention that the Lokpal was not obliged to meaningfully engage with the defence submissions at the stage of sanction. It clarified that while a detailed adjudication is not required at this stage, the Lokpal must demonstrate that it has applied its mind to the material placed before it, including the explanation offered by the public servant. Failure to do so would render the sanction order vulnerable to judicial interference.
On behalf of the investigating agency, it was argued that the Lokpal had acted within its jurisdiction and that the statute did not mandate an oral hearing before granting sanction. While acknowledging that an oral hearing is not mandatory, the High Court held that this did not absolve the Lokpal of its duty to properly consider the written submissions and defence material before granting approval for prosecution.
In view of these findings, the High Court set aside the sanction order and directed the Lokpal to reconsider the issue of sanction afresh in accordance with law. The Court granted a specific time period to the Lokpal to take a fresh decision, emphasising that the statutory procedure and safeguards under the Lokpal Act must be strictly followed.
The judgment underscores the importance of procedural fairness in decisions granting sanction for prosecution, particularly in cases involving public servants. It reiterates that sanction is not a routine or mechanical step, but a serious statutory function that requires careful application of mind to all relevant material. By directing reconsideration, the High Court ensured that the sanction decision would be taken in conformity with the legal framework governing the Lokpal’s powers.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.