Cash-for-query row: Delhi HC grants relief to Mahua Moitra, sets aside Lokpal sanction to CBI

December 19, 2025

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Friday set aside a Lokpal order granting sanction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to file a charge sheet against Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra in connection with the alleged cash-for-query row.

Fresh Decision Directed Within One Month

A bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar allowed Moitra’s plea challenging the Lokpal’s sanction order and directed the Lokpal to reconsider the issue in accordance with law and take a fresh decision within one month.

Failure to Consider MP’s Submissions

Setting aside the impugned order, the Justice Kshetarpal-led Bench accepted Moitra’s contention that the anti-corruption body had failed to properly consider the statutory requirement of examining the comments and material submitted by the public servant before granting sanction under Section 20(7)(a) of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.

Background of Cash-for-Query Allegations

The case arose from allegations levelled by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Nishikant Dubey, who accused Moitra of accepting cash and luxury gifts from Dubai-based businessman Darshan Hiranandani in exchange for raising questions in the Parliament.

Earlier CBI Probe and Lokpal Direction

Acting on the complaint, the Lokpal had earlier directed the CBI to investigate “all aspects” of the matter under Section 20(3)(a) of the Act and submit a report within six months.

Later, the Lokpal’s full bench exercised its powers under Section 20(7)(a) and Section 23(1) of the Lokpal Act, allowing the CBI to file a charge sheet and requiring that a copy be submitted to the anti-corruption body.

Aggrieved by the Lokpal’s order, Moitra moved the Delhi High Court, arguing that the sanction violated natural justice and the statutory scheme since her written and oral submissions were not considered at all.

Legal Arguments by Mahua Moitra

Senior advocate Nidhesh Gupta, appearing for Moitra, submitted that Section 20(7) clearly mandates consideration of the comments of the public servant before sanctioning prosecution.

On the other hand, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the CBI, argued that the Lokpal’s order was passed in accordance with law and that the statute grants only a limited right to the accused at the stage of sanction. Senior Advocate Jivesh Nagrath, representing complainant Dubey, argued that Section 20 of the Act is a complete code and that the comments were properly submitted to the Lokpal.