Supreme Court, Rahul Gandhi

The Supreme Court has deferred the proceedings before the Allahabad High Court in a disproportionate assets case involving Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, while directing the CBI, ED, and other agencies not to submit any inquiry reports to the High Court until further orders.

The Court was hearing a Special Leave Petition filed by the Leader of Opposition and Congress Leader Rahul Gandhi assailing the judgment and order passed by the Allahabad High Court.

The High Court had asked the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Enforcement Directorate to verify the complaint of disproportionate assets made against Rahul Gandhi by a BJP worker, S. Vignesh Shishir. The High Court further clarified that the authorities could take appropriate steps permissible under the law.

During the proceedings, the Bench expressed reservations regarding the High Court's directions and observed that principles of natural justice ought to be adhered to when a court compels an investigation, ensuring that affected parties are afforded an opportunity of being heard.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana ordered, "Issue notice. Respondent be served through dasti. Meanwhile, no reports shall be submitted by CBI or ED or any other authority to the High Court pursuant to the impugned order...The High Court shall defer the next date of hearing till further orders."


Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Gandhi while ASG SV Raju appeared for CBI.

Shishir also appeared in person.

CJI Kant said, "You send your email ID, the Registry will send you the copy of the Petition."

Raju said, "CBI has done nothing except verifying the complaint, we have not even registered anything. This is a serious allegation."

The said complaint was originally instituted by a Bharatiya Janata Party worker from Karnataka, S. Vignesh Shishir.

Shishir submitted, "I request Your Lordships to kindly hear my simple submission. This is a simple pre-FIR stage case, My Lords. This is covered by a 3-judge Bench judgment of this Hon'ble Court in the matter of CBI v. Devendra Ammal & Ors., where it was categorically reiterated by this Court in...that the accused does not have any right to be heard at the pre-FIR stage."

Raju added, "As far as the allegations are concerned, if they make out a cognizable offence, it stands on a different footing. If they do not make out a cognizable offence, it stands on a different footing. Whether to register an FIR and what action is to be taken..."

CJI Kant, "As per the understanding of the law, a police authority or any other agency, if they have any prima facie material, can register their case. They can proceed against anyone; they don't require permission from an accused, right? Suppose somebody commits a murder or hits someone, you can register a case against them. But what appears to us—subject to the assistance both sides will give us—if the Court wants to issue a direction, at least Courts are expected to follow the principles of natural justice."

Sibal added, "In a sealed-cover procedure, how do newspaper reports happen?...It is a sealed-cover procedure. The judges should have asked how it leaked to the newspaper...In-chamber proceedings, My Lords. So, either the PIL petitioner revealed it, or the ED revealed it, or the CBI revealed it. Who revealed it? The judges should be concerned..."

Justice Bagchi said, "Have you done it suo motu? Then let us examine the correctness of this order."

CJI Kant said, "If an investigating agency or a competent prescribed authority takes suo motu action, it is understandable that the law might be giving you that right. But if someone approaches the Court and the Court compels you, there we personally feel that the Court should hear the party."

The Court observed that while agencies possessed inherent statutory powers to register cases suo motu upon discovering prima facie material without requiring permission or prior notice, judicial orders directing an inquiry required the recording of subjective satisfaction.

The Bench questioned the agency's inaction prior to court intervention, emphasizing the doctrine of separation of powers.

Consequently, the Supreme Court directed that proceedings before the High Court be deferred until further orders and instructed the petitioner to supply a soft copy of the paperbook to the respondent.

In his petition before the Apex Court, the Leader of Opposition also impugned the directions issued by the High Court instructing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to verify the allegations raised in the disproportionate assets complaint. Additionally, the petitioner sought the transfer of the proceedings out of the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court. 

Shishir has also filed another petition questioning Gandhi’s citizenship. The applicant claimed that the Congress Leader is a citizen of the United Kingdom and had incorporated a company. It was further claimed that Gandhi had voluntarily declared his nationality as British as per the Companies House, United Kingdom. As per the applicant, the respondent had also submitted the annual returns of the Company showing his nationality as British.

Thereafter, the said Company was dissolved by moving a dissolution application. The applicant had claimed that the respondent, while contesting the 2004 Lok Sabha elections, filed an affidavit along with a nomination form, thereby admitting and mentioning the ownership of M/s Backops Ltd. Company and his foreign bank account.

It was further brought to the Court’s notice that on the complaint of one Dr Subramanian Swami, a notice was issued to the respondent by the Director, Citizenship, Ministry of Home Affairs, Foreigners Division, Government of India.

Cause Title: Rahul Gandhi v. S Viginesh Shishir and Ors. [Diary No. 47728/2026]

Tags: