Supreme Court Stays Order Directing Lokpal To Grant Sanction In Cash For Query Case; Issues Notice To Mahua Moitra

Supreme Court on Friday stayed the Delhi High Court order directing the Lokpal of India to grant sanction within two months to Central Bureau of Investigation for filing a charge sheet against TMC MP Mahua Moitra for allegedly accepting money and favours to ask questions in Parliament.

Court issued notice on a petition filed by Lokpal of India seeking correct interpretation and interplay between different provisions governing the inquiry/investigation procedure to be followed by the Lokpal in discharge of its functions and duties specified in Chapter VII and other enabling provisions, Section 20 included, of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.

Lokpal of India has approached Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court's decision reversing the view expressed by Lokpal regarding the procedure followed by it during the inquiry/investigation in adherence to Section 20 of the Act of 2013. 

Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar appearing for Lokpal of India told court today that there's an interpretation issue of section 20 by High Court judges. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for CBI told court that he supported the interpretation given to the Act,

"If you see the provisions, apparently they overlap. But there are fine distinctions between filing of chargesheet and conduct of prosecution...Lokpal Act is to create confidence in enquiry into public servants...where there's a real or perceptible fear that he/she may disable the investigating and prosecution agencies from conducting their duties. So does Lokpal not apply mind on sanction that he's satisfied about fairness of investigation...", Justice Bagchi noted today as the court issued notice on the petition. 

The CJI Surya Kant led bench has also stayed the operation of the Delhi High Court order allowing Lokpal of India two months time to decide on granting sanction to the Central Bureau of Investigation to file chargesheet against Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra in the cash for query scam.

Supreme Court has been told that Lokpal is bestowed with supervisory powers in respect of inquiries/investigations including power to accord sanctions (i) to file a case through its own Prosecution Wing or a charge sheet/police report through the nominated investigating agency, after investigation is complete; (ii) thereafter to direct its own Prosecution Wing or the investigating agency to initiate prosecution in the Special Court upon filing of the case or charge sheet, as the case may be – a precondition to enable the Special Court to take cognizance of the case.

In Mahua Moitra's case, by the impugned judgment, the High Court set aside the order passed by the Lokpal in terms of Section 20(7)(a) of the Lokpal Act, whereby the Lokpal had accorded sanction to the Central Bureau of Investigation to file a charge-sheet before the competent court, whereafter it could have considered the issue of sanction to initiate prosecution in terms of Section 20(8) of the Act of 2013.  

"The High Court has not considered the interplay between Section 12, 20, 23, 25 and 56 of the Lokpal Act in its proper perspective. The High Court erred in arriving at a conclusion that sanction under Section (20)(7)(a) means the sanction for prosecution. The impugned judgment, if allowed to stand, will have far-reaching consequences. It will enable accused persons to stall corruption prosecutions at the threshold by inviting writ courts to conduct mini-trials at the first sanction stage, thereby frustrating the object of the Lokpal Act and eroding public confidence in anti corruption institutions," Lokpal's plea states.

Delhi High Court on December 19, 2025, had allowed Moitra’s petition challenging the Lokpal’s decision granting sanction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to file a chargesheet against her in the cash for query case. High Court has set aside the Lokpal of India's order while holding that it erred in understanding the provisions of the Lokpal Act. A bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar had reserved judgment after hearing submissions from Moitra’s counsel as well as Additional Solicitor General S V Raju appearing for the CBI.

In July 2025, the CBI submitted its report after the Lokpal directed it to investigate allegations made by BJP MP Nishikant Dubey against Moitra, who was then the Lok Sabha member from Krishnanagar. Dubey had accused Moitra of asking questions in Parliament to target the Adani Group at the behest of businessman Darshan Hiranandani in exchange for gifts, a controversy widely referred to as the cash for query row.

Earlier, the Lokpal had allowed the CBI to file a chargesheet within four weeks and directed that a copy be submitted to the Lokpal. In her plea, Moitra asked the High Court to quash this sanction, arguing that the decision is legally flawed, contrary to the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, and in violation of natural justice. Her plea states that although the Lokpal invited her submissions, it then disregarded them and treated her defence as “premature,” choosing to consider it only at a later stage.

Case Title: LOKPAL OF INDIA Vs MAHUA MOITRA, LOKPAL OF INDIA Vs RAJESH KUMAR SINGH and LOKPAL OF INDIA Vs MUJAHAT ALI KHAN

Bench: CJI Kant and Justice Bagchi

Hearing Date: March 13, 2026