The Supreme Court on Monday directed deferral of proceedings before the Allahabad High Court in a petition seeking CBI and Enforcement Directorate (ED) investigations against Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi. The matter was heard on Gandhi’s petition challenging the proceedings initiated on the basis of a complaint by S. Vignesh Shishir, who appeared in person before the Supreme Court. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Gandhi, while Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju represented the CBI.
At the outset, Mr Sibal questioned the locus of the petitioner to pursue the proceedings and also referred to the Allahabad High Court’s order recording Shishir’s credentials.
“
“What is the locus of the petitioner to move this? And his credentials, he doesn’t disclose it. There is an order of the High Court at page 41. He is an RSS worker.”
Shishir sought permission to appear in person and oppose Rahul Gandhi’s petition, informing the Court that he had filed a caveat. Shishir requested that he be supplied with the paperbook. The Court accordingly directed that a complete copy of the paper book be supplied to Respondent No. 1, S. Vignesh Shishir, at his email address.
Vignesh Shishir pointed out that the matter was at a pre-FIR stage and cited Supreme Court precedents holding that an accused does not have a right to be heard at the pre-FIR stage. CBI clarified that it had not registered an FIR and was only verifying the complaint.
Mr Sibal, however, questioned the closed participation of CBI and how details of proceedings being dealt with confidentially had appeared in newspaper reports.
“
“These are sealed-cover procedures. How do newspaper reports happen? It’s a sealed-cover procedure. The judges should have asked how they come in the newspaper. Either the petitioner’s revealed it, or the ED revealed it, or the CBI revealed it. Who has revealed it? The judges should be concerned.”
The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana questioned the impugned order, observing that courts are required to adhere to the principles of natural justice when issuing directions to investigating agencies. It remarked:
“
“As per the understanding of law, the police authority or any other agency, if they have any crime, they can register their case. They can proceed against anyone. They don’t require permission from an accused. Suppose somebody is committing a murder or somebody has hit someone, you can register a case against them. But what appears to us, subject to the assistance which both sides will give to us, if the court wants to issue a direction, at least courts are expected to follow the principles of natural justice.”
Justice Joymalya Bagchi also questioned why the investigating agencies would require judicial impetus if the allegations were sufficiently serious to warrant investigation. He remarked: “It is so serious, why your agency has stepped forward? Do you require an impetus from the court?”
The Court consequently issued notice on Rahul Gandhi’s plea and passed an interim order deferring further proceedings before the Allahabad High Court in the matter.