Lokpal Need Not Comply Fresh Sanction Directions: Apex Court On Delhi HC’s Direction To Lokpal In Alleged 'Cash-For-Query' Row Against Mahua Moitra

The Supreme Court asked the Lokpal that it need not comply with the direction passed by the Delhi High Court for a fresh sanction in the "cash-for-query" row involving TMC leader Mahua Moitra.

The Court remarked that the High Court’s interpretation—which limited the Lokpal’s role in prosecution and mandated a combined exercise under Section 20(7) and (8)—requires deeper scrutiny to ensure the Lokpal’s statutory duty to insulate high-level investigations remains intact.

The Court was hearing a plea by the Lokpal of India today challenging the Delhi High Court’s decision to quash the sanction for a CBI chargesheet against TMC leader Mahua Moitra. The matter pertains to the ongoing "cash-for-query" investigation.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ordered, "Issue notice. CBI accepts notice on behalf of AOR... Dasti notice to complainant. Meanwhile, the Learned Lokpal need not comply with directions in Para 89 of the impugned order dated 19.12.2025. "

Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar appeared for the Petitioner, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the CBI.

Mehta submitted, "I support the impugned order insofar as it gives interpretation to the Act, though Respondents need to be investigated."

Senior Advocate Kumar said, "There is some issue regarding the interpretation of Section 20. We are not here for an individual but for the interplay between different parts of the section...There is a direction in the first case, to comply and issue the order composite under Section 20(7) and (8) together."

Justice Bagchi said, "We would like to examine the findings in paragraphs 77, 78 and 76 where the High Court has said that Lokpal is on investigation and not on prosecution... It does not have a role in prosecution. This will require examination in light of Section 12 of the Act."

Justice Bagchi further added, "We are not permitting prosecution as of now. What Lokpal wants is an interpretation of section 20 since they have been asked to carry out a composite exercise. We prima facie agree that it may be an incorrect interpretation of section 20."

Chief Justice remarked, "Para 89 of the judgment need not be complied with by the Lokpal. We will say only this much."

Justice Bagchi said, "There are fine differences between the conduct of the accused and the filing of the chargesheet. Lokpal is an act to ensure and insulate and to create public confidence in inquiry, investigation,n and prosecution of public servants where public servants are highly placed, and thereforetherer is a real or a perceptible fear that he or she may disable these agencies, namely the investigating agency and prosecution agencies conducting their statutory duties...Should not Lokpal apply mind in the fairness of the investigation, conclusion of the investigation and then give sanction. In Section 20(8) lokpal takes the second call that this investigation does with fair application of mind should not render the investigation a waste due to an indolent investigator. Lest the independent views of the erudite counsels we did not express our mind. Let us examine the interplay of these sections in light of the BNSS and the Prevention of Corruption Act."

The High Court in Para 89 had ordered, "89. The learned Lokpal is requested to accord its consideration for the grant of sanction under Section 20 of the Lokpal Act, strictly in accordance with provisions thereof as construed hereinabove, within a period of one month from today."

In another connected matter, the Court ordered, "Notice being issued only for the limited purpose of determining the scope of powers of Lokpal. This order shall not be construed as permission to proceed against respondent No.1. Status quo shall be maintained for preservation of the record."

The Court also impleaded the Union of India as a party in the matter.

Kumar, appearing for the Lokpal, argued that the central legal question is whether the Lokpal is required to provide detailed reasons when it decides to differ from a Preliminary Enquiry (PE). He contended that the Lokpal had merely issued a show-cause notice to hear the other side, but the High Court viewed this as "pre-judging" the issue.

The Court also heard the case of another respondent, Mujahat Ali Khan.

Kumar argued that Khan was an Accused No. 6 in the FIR and a beneficiary of manipulated OMR sheets, justifying the Lokpal’s decision to bypass a fresh preliminary enquiry.

Chief Justice Surya Kant questioned, "Initially, nothing was found against him. How do you want to proceed against him? You rightly did not hear, because his name was not there in the complaint. But once you passed the order, his name was added. Today, he is being implicated in purported compliance of order passed by you."

Justice Bagchi noted that once an FIR is filed and an investigation report is submitted, the legal landscape shifts. "FIR has merged into an investigation report... We will apply the law in a pragmatic manner", he said.

Background

On December 19, 2025, the Delhi High Court quashed the Lokpal's order, describing the procedure used as "statutory ingenuity" that departed from the mandates of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.

A writ petition was filed before the Delhi High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India 1 assailing the Sanction Order dated 12.11.2025, passed in Complaint No. 201/2023 by the Lokpal of India, whereby sanction was granted for filing a charge- sheet before the competent court under Section 20(7)(a) read with Section 23(1) of the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 20134 against the Moitra. 

This case begins with a complaint against Moitra regarding a "cash-for-query" row. The allegations state that the MP shared secret login credentials for the Lok Sabha Member Portal with a Dubai-based businessman. It is alleged that the businessman used these credentials to post parliamentary questions that helped his own business interests. Furthermore, the complaint claims the MP received cash, luxury gifts, and help with house renovations in exchange for these favours.

The Lokpal of India initially directed the CBI to conduct a Preliminary Inquiry. After reviewing the initial report and the MP’s objections—which claimed the allegations were politically motivated and that sharing credentials for clerical help was common—the Lokpal ordered a full investigation. The CBI eventually submitted a detailed Investigation Report to the Lokpal on June 30, 2025, seeking permission to file a formal chargesheet in court.

On November 12, 2025, the Lokpal granted sanction to the CBI to file the chargesheet. In its reasoning, the Lokpal distinguished between two types of sanctions under the Lokpal Act. It clarified that the current permission (under Section 20(7)(a)) is merely an administrative step to allow the filing of a chargesheet. The Lokpal noted that a second, more formal sanction (under Section 20(8)) would be required later before a court can actually begin the prosecution (taking cognizance). The Lokpal found enough initial evidence of shared credentials and received favours to justify the chargesheet.

Moitra challenged this order in the High Court, arguing that the Lokpal acted mechanically. Her counsel argued that the Lokpal ignored her detailed written submissions and evidence that countered the CBI's findings. They contended that the Lokpal has a duty to "apply its mind" to all available material, including the option to close the case entirely if the evidence is insufficient. She argued that because the CBI found the "cash" allegations unsubstantiated, the Lokpal should not have sanctioned the chargesheet.

The CBI, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, argued that Moitra has limited rights at this stage. They stated that filing a chargesheet is an administrative supervisory act and does not mean the trial has started. They argued that the Lokpal gave Moitra more than enough opportunity to be heard, even though it wasn't strictly required by law. The Complainant supported this, stating that the major legal determinations only happen at the final prosecution stage, not during the filing of the chargesheet.

The High Court emphasised that its power under Article 226 of the Constitution is "supervisory," not "appellate." This means the court looks at whether the decision-making process was fair and legal, rather than re-evaluating the evidence itself. The Court noted that it should only interfere if the Lokpal’s decision was completely irrational, illegal, or made without jurisdiction. 

Cause Title: Lokpal Of India v. Mahua Moitra and Others [SLP(C) No. 8919/2026, SLP(C) No. 9576-9577/2026]