New Delhi, Dec 19 (NationPress) The Delhi High Court on Friday rescinded a Lokpal order that authorized the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to submit a charge sheet against Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra regarding the purported cash-for-query controversy.

A bench comprising Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar granted Moitra's petition contesting the Lokpal’s sanction order, instructing the Lokpal to reassess the matter following legal protocols and reach a new decision within one month.

In nullifying the disputed order, the bench led by Justice Kshetarpal acknowledged Moitra’s argument that the anti-corruption agency had inadequately assessed the necessary statutory conditions, particularly the evaluation of comments and evidence submitted by the public servant prior to sanctioning under Section 20(7)(a) of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.

The allegations stemmed from claims made by BJP MP Nishikant Dubey, who accused Moitra of accepting cash and extravagant gifts from Dubai-based businessman Darshan Hiranandani in exchange for raising parliamentary questions.

Following the complaint, the Lokpal had previously mandated the CBI to investigate “all aspects” of the case under Section 20(3)(a) of the Act and to present a report within a six-month timeframe.

Subsequently, the Lokpal’s full bench exercised its authority under Section 20(7)(a) and Section 23(1) of the Lokpal Act, permitting the CBI to file a charge sheet and mandating that a copy be sent to the anti-corruption body.

Dissatisfied with the Lokpal’s ruling, Moitra approached the Delhi High Court, contending that the sanction breached principles of natural justice and the statutory framework since her written and oral arguments were disregarded.

Senior advocate Nidhesh Gupta, representing Moitra, argued that Section 20(7) clearly necessitates the consideration of a public servant’s comments prior to sanctioning prosecution.

Conversely, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, representing the CBI, contended that the Lokpal’s order was executed in compliance with legal standards, asserting that the statute affords only limited rights to the accused during the sanction stage. Senior Advocate Jivesh Nagrath, on behalf of complainant Dubey, argued that Section 20 of the Act serves as a comprehensive framework and that the comments were properly presented to the Lokpal.