The Supreme Court on Monday ordered the Allahabad High Court to defer proceedings before it in a petition filed by a BJP worker alleging that Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi possesses assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana also ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or any other authority not to submit any report to the High Court in the meantime.
During the hearing, the Court asked why the High Court passed orders in the case without giving Gandhi an opportunity of hearing.
"Suppose somebody commits murders, etc. police does not need permission. But what appears to us is, subject to the assistance provided to us from both sides, if the Court wants to issue a direction, the courts are expected to follow the principle of natural justice," the CJI remarked.
The Bench also said that if any agency has knowledge of any disproportionate assets belonging to any individual, it can proceed on its own and the same does not require court orders.
In this particular case, the agencies have not taken any action on their own, the Court noted.
"If it is so serious, why has your agency kept quiet? Do you need a direction from the Court, Mr Raju? Have you taken any suo motu action? No, right?" Justice Bagchi asked Additional Solicitor General SV Raju who was appearing for CBI.
Last month, the High Court asked the CBI to file a fresh affidavit detailing the status of its inquiry. Expressing dissatisfaction with the CBI's response, the High Court in its July 20 order observed,
"The counter affidavit of CBI 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 CBI."
The bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh and Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan also observed that the ED has taken the required steps and was free to proceed further if the investigation yielded material warranting action.
Gandhi the challenged these directions before the apex court.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Gandhi, pointed out that the present petitioner has no locus in the matter and the petitioner has not disclosed his credentials.
Sibal alleged that the petition before the High Court is a witch hunt process.
"This is unknown to law, my lord. This is absolutely unknown to law. This is a witch hunt process which is not recognised by law. This is most unfortunate, my lord. Attempts after attempt are being made by this very petitioner. What is the locus of the petitioner to move this writ petition? And his credentials, my lord, he doesn't disclose it. May I only say, CBI has done nothing except verifying the complaint," Sibal said.
The Court then flagged the fact the High Court did not hear Gandhi before passing any orders against him.
The petitioner before High Court, Vignesh Shishir, countered that the issue is at a pre-FIR stage and the accused need not be heard.
"This is a simple pre-FIR stage case, my lord... the accused doesn't have any right to be heard in the pre-FIR stage," Shishir said.
Sibal also asked how confidential procedures came to be published in newspapers.
"And the other thing, these are sealed cover procedures. How do newspaper reports happen? It's a sealed cover procedure. The judges should have asked how it come in the newspaper," Sibal submitted.
Meanwhile, Justice Bagchi said that the issues raised in the petition were not something that require court orders for the agencies to investigate and they are empowered to probe suo motu.
In this case, there was no such probe and hence, the judge asked why the agencies were waiting for court orders in case there was any violation of law.
The Court then proceeded to pass an interim order in favour of Gandhi by deferring the proceedings.
In a separate pending petition, Shishir has sought criminal action against Gandhi alleging violations of citizenship laws, claiming that the Congress leader held a British passport in addition to his Indian one.
That matter is also pending before the High Court.
