Lokpal approaches Delhi High Court seeking time to decide on sanction against Mahua Moitra

The Lokpal has requested Delhi High Court to extend the time granted for considering grant of sanction to CBI to file a chargesheet against Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra in the cash-for-query scam under provisions different from those applied earlier, which were struck down by the high court earlier.

A bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Renu Bhatnagar directed that Lokpal’s application seeking two more months to comply with the Court’s direction be listed on January 23 before the bench which passed the previous order.

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.

Appearing for the CBI, ASG S V Raju had defended the Lokpal’s decision, submitting that it had complied with all statutory obligations and had even provided Moitra more opportunities than the law required. He argued that the Lokpal Act does not grant an entitlement to an oral hearing and limits the public servant’s right to filing comments. Despite this, Raju argued that Moitra was allowed to file comments, affidavits and make oral submissions, all of which were considered before the sanction was granted. He added that Moitra’s plea was an attempt to introduce material at a stage where the statutory framework does not permit it. He told the Court that unlike the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Lokpal scheme contains no provision for summoning or a wider evidentiary exchange.

Appearing for Moitra, Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta submitted that there were clear infirmities in the procedure adopted by the Lokpal under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. Moitra contends that the Lokpal is duty-bound under Section 20(7)(a) to consider the defence of the public servant fairly at this stage, including the possibility of directing a closure report before deciding whether prosecution is justified. She argued that the sanction order effectively foreclosed the option of closure by ignoring her submissions and instead approving prosecution to her prejudice. Moitra had also sought an interim stay on the sanction and had requested that the CBI be restrained from acting on it, including filing any chargesheet, until the High Court decided her challenge, but no such stay was granted.