Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, Aug 17: The Supreme Court on Monday ordered an immediate halt in the investigation into the alleged disproportionate assets case against the Congress leader and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi as initiated by the Allahabad High Court on a private complaint and observed that the courts at least courts should follow the “principles of natural justice.”
A three-judge Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant was reacting to submissions made by senior advocate Kapil Sibal and advocate Prasanna S., appearing for Mr Gandhi, that the High Court proceedings and subsequent directions to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Directorate of Enforcement (ED) to inquire into the allegations of disproportionate assets made by one S. Vignesh Shishir, against the Congress leader, amounted to a “witch-hunt.”
“No report shall be submitted by the CBI, ED, or any other authority to the High Court… Further, the High Court shall defer the next date of hearing till further orders,” the Supreme Court ordered. The High Court was scheduled to hear the case on August 20.
Expressing dissatisfaction with the CBI’s response, the Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow bench on July 20 had 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. Gandhi had earlier approached 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.
“If the matter was that serious, why did the probe agencies kept quiet,” the Supreme Court asked the lawyer representing the central investigating agencies in the case. “If it is so serious, why has your agency kept quiet? Do you need a direction from the Court, Mr Raju? Have you taken any suo motu action? No, right?” Justice Bagchi asked the law officer the Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju representing the probe agencies.
Mr Sibal said the High Court proceedings were conducted in-chamber and not in open court. The records were kept in sealed covers. Mr Gandhi was not given an opportunity to be heard on the allegations.
“According to our understanding of the law, the police or an investigating authority can register a case on a complaint. They do not require permission of the accused to do that. But the courts are different. If the courts want to issue directions [for inquiry/investigation], the courts are expected to fulfill the principles of natural justice,” Chief Justice Kant addressed the CBI counsel,
Mr Raju said he was strictly on the law. He said the facts presented in Mr Shishir’s complaint may be right or wrong. “But if the facts are right, it is a gross case of disproportionate assets,” the law officer, who is also appearing for the ED, submitted. He maintained that the allegations in the complaint were “very serious”, and could not have been dismissed as “frivolous.”
“If they [allegations against Mr Gandhi] were so serious, why did your agency keep quiet all this while? Did you require an impetus from the court? You could have used your own statutory powers to start an inquiry…”, Justice Joymalya Bagchi addressed Mr Raju.
Justice Bagchi said since the CBI had admittedly not taken suo motu cognisance and conducted an inquiry, the apex court was bound to examine the correctness of the High Court order which directed the agencies to start the inquiry.
“If someone is approaching the court, and the court compelled you, then we certainly feel this should be looked into… When the court says something, its subjective satisfaction would be recorded. We will look into that,” Chief Justice Kant said. The court further asked Mr Gandhi’s side to share the case paperbook with Mr Shishir, who appeared on caveat.
Mr Gandhi had termed the series of directions passed by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court in May and July directing the CBI and the ED to probe the allegations against him as one of the rarest instances of a Constitutional Court acting contrary to several first principles or basic, fundamental legal rules all at once.
The Opposition Leader said terming these orders outside the settled rules of law or erroneous would be a gross understatement. Mr Gandhi submitted that the proceedings were characterised by the unjustified secrecy of in-chamber hearings with documents and pleadings kept under wraps in sealed cover. He had maintained that the High Court did not refer to the foundational material or provide reasons in the orders for directing a “roving inquiry.”
Mr Gandhi challenged the locus standi of Mr Shishir, saying he was a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) who had instituted multiple complaints and public interest litigation against him in the past. The Leader of Opposition said the High court orders had directly affected his civil rights and political reputation. He noted how the High Court had ordered an investigation by ED under the money laundering even without a predicate offence being registered.
Kapil Sibal, appearing for Rahul Gandhi, questioned the locus standi of the petitioner, Vignesh Shishir, to file a petition in the high 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 told the top court.
“May I only say, the CBI has done nothing except verifying the complaint,” the senior lawyer said. Mr Raju said the central probe agencies 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 Chief Justice said.
The petitioner, who appeared online, 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.