New Delhi: In a major relief to Rahul Gandhi, the Supreme Court Monday asked the Allahabad High Court not to proceed with a case involving allegations of disproportionate assets against the Congress leader.
The top court also asked the CBI and the ED not to file any report in pursuance of the directions of the high court in the case lodged against the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana took note of the submissions of senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Gandhi, and issued notices to Karnataka resident S Vignesh Shishir, who filed the plea in the high court, the CBI and the ED.
The bench was hearing a plea filed by Gandhi against the High Court order.
It directed the high court to defer the next hearing before it till the next date of hearing in the Supreme Court.
“This is absolutely unknown to law. This is a witch-hunt process which is not recognised by law. This is most unfortunate. Attempts after attempt are being made by this very petitioner,” Sibal said at the outset.
He questioned the locus of Vignesh Shishir to file a petition in the High Court.
Also Read : Rahul Gandhi urges Jharkhand CM Soren to meet protesting students over exam irregularities
He also did not disclose his credentials, Sibal said.
“May I only say, the CBI has done nothing except verifying the complaint,” the senior lawyer said.
Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the central probe agencies, said they have no role in the case so far, and if the complaint discloses commission of cognisable offences, then it is very serious.
“We are not concerned with that… Suppose somebody commits murder, etc., police do not need permission. But what appears to us is, subject to the assistance provided to us from both sides, if the court wants to issue a direction, it is expected to follow the principle of natural justice,” the CJI said.
Shishir, who had moved the high court against Gandhi, appeared online and opposed Gandhi’s plea against the high court order.
“This is a simple pre-FIR stage case… The accused doesn’t have any right to be heard in the pre-FIR stage,” he said.
“Facts may be right, facts may be wrong. But if the facts are right, it’s a gross case to use the court’s jurisdiction,” Sibal said.
“The other thing is these are sealed cover procedures. How do newspaper reports happen? It’s a sealed cover procedure. The judges should have asked how it came in newspapers,” Sibal asked.
“If it is so serious, why has your agency kept quiet? Do you need a direction from the court… Have you taken any suo motu action? No, right?” Justice Bagchi asked the law officer representing the probe agencies.
Expressing dissatisfaction with the CBI’s response, the Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow bench on July 20 directed the agency’s senior officer to personally file a fresh affidavit detailing the progress made in the probe into allegations of disproportionate assets against Gandhi.
The high court had also observed that if, during the course of its inquiry, the ED comes across material and documents indicating any illegality, it would be free to proceed further in accordance with law.
The high court was hearing the plea that sought an investigation by the CBI and the ED into allegations of disproportionate assets against the Congress leader.
The order was passed after an in-chamber hearing lasting nearly two hours in the criminal writ petition filed by Shishir.
Gandhi had earlier moved the Supreme Court challenging the order of the high court, which directed the CBI and ED to verify the allegations of disproportionate assets against him.
Shishir had earlier filed pleas alleging that the Congress leader held dual citizenship.
The high court had noted that the affidavit filed by the CBI was not in compliance with its earlier order and did not adequately explain the progress made on the complaint submitted by the petitioner against Gandhi related to his assets.
The court had directed the joint director or the head of the concerned zone at the CBI’s Anti-Corruption headquarters in New Delhi to personally file a fresh affidavit before the next hearing, detailing the progress made in the matter.
The bench had treated the matter as part-heard and fixed August 20 as the next date of hearing.
The High Court had also granted four weeks’ time to the Union government to file detailed counter affidavits on behalf of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), the Department of Revenue under the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, and the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO).
It had also directed that the entire case record continue to remain in a sealed cover in the safe custody of the senior registrar, in terms of its earlier orders.
The High Court bench has not been conducting an open court hearing in the matter, considering its sensitive nature.
