Rahul Gandhi Moves Supreme Court Against Allahabad HC Orders On CBI, ED Probe Into Assets Allegations

Gandhi has also filed a separate transfer petition seeking to move the proceedings from the Allahabad High Court to the Delhi High Court.

Reportedly, both petitions were filed on August 7 and are scheduled to be considered by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana on August 17.

Allahabad HC had directed verification of Allegations

The proceedings before the Allahabad High Court originated from a complaint filed by Karnataka-based BJP worker Vignesh Shishir, who alleged that Gandhi was holding assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.

In an order passed in May, the High Court directed that if the complaint had been received, the allegations should be verified in accordance with law. The Court observed that the CBI or ED could take appropriate steps permissible under law based on the outcome of such verification.

The High Court also directed the agencies to apprise it of the progress in the matter.

HC expressed dissatisfaction with CBI's Affidavit

The High Court has expressed dissatisfaction with the counter affidavit filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in proceedings arising from a complaint alleging that Rahul Gandhi possesses disproportionate assets, observing that the agency's response failed to explain the progress made in the matter.

A division bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Brij Raj Singh had directed the CBI to file a fresh counter affidavit through its Joint Director or Head of Zone, ACHQ Zone, New Delhi, setting out the investigation's progress in clear terms. Court said the affidavit already filed did not enable it to understand what steps had been taken in the matter.

The petition filed by S. Vignesh Shishir, a BJP worker from Karnataka, sought action on his complaint alleging disproportionate assets against Rahul Gandhi. Earlier this year, the high court had directed the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to verify the allegations and place the progress of their inquiry before it.

Why did the Allahabad High Court reject the CBI's affidavit?

While considering the affidavits filed by the investigating agencies, the bench observed that the CBI's response did not comply with the directions contained in its earlier order. "The counter affidavit of C.B.I. does not appear to be a counter affidavit in terms of earlier order. Even we are unable to understand about the progress of the investigation done by the C.B.I.," the court had observed.

The bench had consequently directed that the next affidavit be sworn by the Joint Director or Head of Zone, ACHQ Zone, CBI, New Delhi, and clearly indicate the progress made so that the court could understand the status of the investigation.

What did the High Court say about the ED's probe into the Rahul Gandhi complaint?

Unlike the CBI, the Enforcement Directorate found favour with the bench. After examining the ED's counter affidavit, tcourt observed that the agency had taken the required steps in relation to the complaint.

It further clarified that if, during the course of its investigation, the ED receives material and documents pointing to any misdeed or illegal act, it should proceed strictly in accordance with law. The bench observed that the agency "may not be helpless" in taking further action if such material emerges during the investigation.

The high court had granted four weeks' time to the remaining respondents, including the Union of India and other authorities, to file detailed and exhaustive counter affidavits. It had also directed the Deputy Solicitor General of India to obtain instructions from the competent authorities regarding two interlocutory applications moved by the petitioner and inform the court whether any appropriate action could be taken on the prayers made therein.

Observing that the matter had already been heard at considerable length, the bench directed that it be treated as a part-heard case and listed it on August 20, 2026, after obtaining appropriate orders from the Chief Justice regarding the constitution of the bench. It had further ordered that the records continue to remain in sealed cover in the custody of the Senior Registrar of the high court.