Sandeep Dikshit Seeks Court-Directed CBI Probe Into Alleged Irregularities in Coal Block Allocations

The plea, filed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), asserts that crucial findings by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) and several statutory violations under the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 were overlooked in the agency’s probe.

The application has been filed before Special Judge Dheeraj Mor. 

In his application filed through Advocate Sarim Naved Dikshit alleged that the CBI’s investigation into Case RC 221/2022/E0033; commonly known as the “Coal Block Allocation Case”, was “incomplete, perfunctory, and silent on key aspects of illegality” that were expressly pointed out by the CAG and other statutory bodies. He claimed the agency ignored the question of how private entities secured coal blocks despite the law reserving mining rights exclusively for government undertakings and select end-use industries.

“The CBI has failed to examine the basic illegality in the very act of allocation of captive coal blocks to private companies that did not satisfy the legal and policy criteria,” the plea stated. It further argued that the agency had confined its investigation to individual instances of wrongdoing while ignoring the systemic and procedural irregularities in the allocation process itself.

Dikshit’s complaint cites the CAG’s landmark 2012 report that flagged substantial financial losses to the public exchequer due to the opaque and discretionary method of allocating coal blocks. “The agency’s silence on the findings of a constitutional authority such as the CAG reflects a failure to address the root of the corruption and policy manipulation involved,” the application contends.

The former parliamentarian also pointed to alleged inconsistencies between the government’s declared coal allocation policies and the procedures actually followed.

He claimed that certain companies without requisite technical or financial qualifications were favoured, while public sector undertakings were sidelined. “The process was marked by arbitrariness, favouritism, and lack of transparency, violating the principles of Article 14 of the Constitution,” the plea stated.

In support of his request for further investigation, Dikshit has also invoked the Supreme Court’s 2014 judgment that cancelled 214 coal block allocations, declaring the process “arbitrary and illegal.” He contends that the CBI’s investigation did not sufficiently examine individual accountability of public officials involved in those decisions or the broader policy lapses that enabled them.

“The CBI’s failure to fix responsibility on the decision-makers within the government and to trace the financial beneficiaries of the allocations leaves the investigation grossly incomplete,” he said, urging the court to direct the agency to “reopen and expand” its probe.

The petition seeks a judicial direction under Section 156(3) CrPC for further investigation, arguing that new evidence and leads are likely to emerge if the CBI examines records and communications of the concerned ministries afresh. It also requests the court to monitor the progress of the investigation to ensure impartiality and adherence to law.