NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday deferred the hearing on two pleas filed by the Lokpal in the alleged cash-for-query scam against Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana took note of the fact that the Centre, which was made a party to the petitions on July 24, was unrepresented during the hearing.
“The Union of India is unrepresented. One more opportunity is granted to the UOI to file the counter affidavit (reply), if required. The matter is adjourned,” the bench said.
On July 24, the bench had made the Ministry of Home Affairs a party to the pleas.
Prior to this, the top court had on March 13 stayed a part of the December 19, 2025 order of the Delhi High Court permitting the Lokpal to consider granting sanction to the CBI to file a charge sheet against Moitra in the alleged cash-for-query scam.
It had issued notices to Moitra, the CBI and BJP MP and complainant Nishikant Dubey on the Lokpal's pleas against the high court's decision.
The Lokpal had challenged the high court's judgement that had held that separate sanctions for the filing of a charge sheet and initiating prosecution are not contemplated by the Lokpal and Lok Ayuktas Act, 2013.
On December 19 last year, the high court had set aside an order of the Lokpal granting sanction to the CBI to file a charge sheet against Moitra in the alleged cash-for-query scam.
"The learned Lokpal is requested to accord its consideration for grant of sanction under Section 20 of the Lokpal Act, strictly in accordance with provisions thereof as construed hereinabove, within a period of one month from today," the high court had said in para 89 of that judgement.
The CJI-led bench had stayed the para 89 of the high court judgement while issuing notices on a batch of pleas related to power and procedures enumerated under section 20 of the Lokpal Act.
The high court passed the verdict on a plea by Moitra challenging the November 12, 2025 order of the Lokpal granting sanction to the CBI to file the chargesheet against her in connection with the alleged scam.
Holding that Section 20 of the Lokpal Act did not contemplate the separate grant of a sanction for filing of a chargesheet, and the sanction is granted only in a composite manner for prosecution, the high court had quashed the sanction granted by the Lokpal to the CBI to file a chargesheet against Moitra in the case.
The ombudsman moved the apex court challenging the interpretation given by the high court.
Senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the Lokpal, had submitted that the ombudsman was aggrieved with the interpretation given to the Lokpal Act by the high court, and was not concerned with any particular individual.
Solicitor General Mehta, appearing for the CBI, had said the probe agency supported the interpretation given by the high court.
He also added that the respondent TMC MP needs to be investigated.
The law officer said the question was whether two rounds of sanctions were contemplated, one for filing of the chargesheet and the second for initiating prosecution.
"Solicitor, if you see the provisions (Section 20(7)(a) and 20(8)), apparently they overlap. But there are fine distinctions between the filing of a chargesheet and the conduct of prosecution. And when the conduct of prosecution comes into play, see the history of Lokpal Act. The Lokpal Act is to create public confidence in the enquiry into and prosecution of public servants who are highly placed, where there's a real or perceptible fear that he/she may disable the investigating and prosecution agencies from conducting their duties...," Justice Bagchi said.
Justice Bagchi said Lokpal may withhold the prosecution from the investigating agency and may direct prosecution through its agency.
"Let's examine the interplay of the sections in light of BNSS and the Prevention of Corruption Act," she said.
The high court, while setting aside the order of the Lokpal granting sanction to the CBI to file a chargesheet against Moitra, had said there was a "clear departure" from the procedure expressly mandated under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, and the Lokpal had erred in its understanding and interpretation of the provisions of the Act.
The court asked the Lokpal to accord its consideration for grant of sanction under Section 20 of the Lokpal Act, strictly in accordance with the provisions within a month.
The cash-for-query scam pertains to the allegation that Moitra asked questions in the Lok Sabha in exchange for cash and gifts from a businessman.
The court passed the verdict on a plea by Moitra challenging the November 12 order of the Lokpal granting sanction to the CBI to file the charge sheet against her in connection with the alleged cash for query scam.
The CBI in July last year submitted its report to the Lokpal in connection with the cash-for-query scam case involving Moitra and businessman Darshan Hiranandani.
The agency registered its FIR on March 21, 2024, against the two under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act on a reference from the Lokpal.
It was alleged that Moitra indulged in corrupt practices, including but not limited to, taking bribes and other undue advantages from Hiranandani for "compromising her parliamentary privileges and causing national security threats by sharing her Lok Sabha login credentials".
