The Allahabad High Court has ordered a senior Central Bureau of Investigation officer to file a fresh affidavit explaining the agency’s progress in examining allegations of disproportionate assets against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi.
The Lucknow bench expressed dissatisfaction with the CBI’s earlier response, saying it did not clearly disclose what action had been taken on a complaint submitted against Gandhi, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha. The court has fixed August 20 for the next hearing.
A division bench of Justices Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Brij Raj Singh directed the CBI’s joint director or the head of the agency’s Anti-Corruption Headquarters zone in New Delhi to personally submit the new affidavit.
The judges said the document must categorically describe any progress made in the inquiry. The bench observed that it could not understand the status of the agency’s examination from the affidavit already placed before it.
The court also said the Enforcement Directorate would be free to proceed in accordance with law if its inquiry uncovered documents or other material indicating illegality. The observation does not amount to a finding against Gandhi, and no criminal liability has been established in the proceedings.
The order arose from a criminal writ petition filed by Karnataka resident S Vignesh Shishir. The petitioner has sought an investigation by the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate into allegations that Gandhi possesses assets disproportionate to known sources of income.
Shishir, described in court reports as a Bharatiya Janata Party worker, has previously pursued litigation raising questions about Gandhi’s citizenship. The allegations in the present case remain unproven and are being examined at a preliminary stage.
The court passed its latest directions after an in-chamber hearing that lasted almost two hours on Monday. The order was uploaded to the High Court’s website on Tuesday. The bench has avoided an open-court hearing because of what it described as the sensitive nature of the matter.
Both investigative agencies submitted counter-affidavits during the proceedings. After examining the CBI’s filing, the judges concluded that it did not comply adequately with an earlier direction requiring the agency to report the progress made on the petitioner’s complaint.
The Enforcement Directorate informed the court about the preliminary steps it had taken. The bench recorded that the agency could act under the applicable legal framework if its verification produced material suggesting a possible offence.
The court gave the Union government four weeks to file detailed responses on behalf of the Department of Personnel and Training, the Department of Revenue, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and the Serious Fraud Investigation Office.
Those departments and agencies were included because the petition seeks scrutiny by multiple bodies responsible for corruption inquiries, financial enforcement, company regulation and corporate fraud investigations. Their responses are expected to clarify whether the allegations fall within their jurisdiction and whether any formal action has been initiated.
The bench said two interim applications filed by the petitioner would also be considered at the August 20 hearing. It ordered that the complete case record should remain in a sealed cover under the safe custody of the High Court’s senior registrar.
The sealed-cover direction continues an arrangement made during earlier proceedings. Documents supplied by the petitioner have not been publicly examined, limiting independent assessment of the claims or the evidence cited in support of them.
The case reached its present stage after the court directed the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate in May to verify the complaint in accordance with law. The agencies were asked to take any legally permissible steps and inform the court about their progress.
At that stage, the CBI said it had received the complaint and sought time to respond. The Enforcement Directorate also agreed to verify the allegations. The court postponed a decision on whether the petition itself was maintainable until the respondents had filed their affidavits and the petitioner had an opportunity to reply.
The latest order therefore concerns the sufficiency of the agencies’ responses rather than the truth of the accusations. The bench has neither ordered the registration of a criminal case nor declared that Gandhi possesses unexplained assets.
