In a writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court praying for a writ of certiorari for quashing an order dated 24-07-2025 by the Lokpal of India whereby directions were given for an investigation against the petitioner as well as certain other customs department officials from Kolkata under Section 20(3) of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (Act) by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), a Division Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Renu Bhatnagar quashed the impugned order to the extent that it was related to the petitioner.
The complainant (respondent 5) is alleged to be the mastermind behind a smuggling syndicate controlling more than 20 dummy firms. Over time, several show-cause notices were issued to the complainant proposing confiscation of goods and raising demands of several hundred crores. At the time, the petitioner was serving as a Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Delhi Zonal Unit, Ministry of Finance, and was a part of the investigation team of the said matter.
Respondent 5 lodged a complaint before the Lokpal on 13-09-2024 alleging corruption, misuse of office, and other misconduct against the petitioner and other customs department officials of Kolkata. By an order dated 27-09-2024, the Lokpal directed a preliminary inquiry by the CBI, after which no material was found, and the CBI submitted its report in his favour. However, the other customs officials were not exempted, and the Lokpal sought comments from the Director General of Vigilance, who concurred with CBI’s findings. This view was also accepted by the competent authority in the Ministry of Finance.
Thereafter, by an order dated 21-05-2025, the Lokpal issued a show-cause notice to the Kolkata customs officials and also issued a notice to the petitioner. Considering the replies, the Lokpal passed the impugned order and directed the CBI to investigate the matter under Section 20(3)(a) of the Act against the Kolkata customs officials and the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present petition.
The Court stated that once the materials were in favour of the petitioner, the statute required the Lokpal to record reasons as to why a prima facie case still existed. It was said that solely a complaint filed after years could not have constituted the basis on which prima facie satisfaction under Section 20(3) could rest. It was stated that the order dated 21-05-2025 and the notice based upon the same were not supported by any material against the petitioner, which made both the order and the notice not only perverse but also illegal.
The Court said that the statutory framework under Section 20 must be followed and that it is not a mere procedural formality but a mandatory requirement. It was stated that the Lokpal must show that his satisfaction is based on material and after due application of mind, to ensure that further actions are not taken merely on allegations or assumptions.
Further, the Court neither found any articulation of facts by the Lokpal in the impugned order nor identified any defects or contradictions in the preliminary inquiry report. It was stated that the impugned order did not reflect the application of mind, particularly when the effect of such an order is to set in motion an investigation against a public servant. The Court held that sufficient material must exist to support the exercise of power vested in the Lokpal, in the absence of which, the exercise becomes arbitrary and illegal.
The Court stated that the impugned order did not reflect adherence to fundamental principles and that a direction for investigation under Section 20(3) carries serious consequences, requiring strict compliance with statutory requirements and the principles of fairness in decision-making. It was said that the Lokpal had failed to indicate any concrete material or infirmity in the preliminary inquiry report that warranted a deviation from the findings which were in the petitioner’s favour.
Thus, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order by the Lokpal insofar as it related to the petitioner, and not the Kolkata customs officials.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. Apurv Kurup, Sr. Adv., Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Ms. Mehak Kumar, Mr. Gaurav Vats, Mr. Akhil Hasija, Ms. Nidhi Mittal
For Respondents – Mr. Anurag Ojha, (Sr. SC), Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari (Sr. Adv.), Mr. Anupam S. Sharma (SPP), Mr. Premtosh K. Mishra (CGSC), Mr. N. Venkataraman (ASG), Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, Mr. Vijay Singh Mehra, Mr. Shrirang Katneshwarkar, Mr. Vashisth Rao, Ms. Amisha P. Dash, Ms. Riya Sachdev, Mr. Deepak Rawat, Mr. Shrey Sharma, Mr. Anubhav Upadhyay, Mr. Arpit Bamal, Ms. Rooh-e-hin Dua, Mr. Harshit Khanduja, Ms. Shreya Arora, Mr. Ricky Chaudhary, Ms. Aroha Kadyan
