For

The Supreme Court on Friday expressed prima facie doubts about the Delhi High Court order that set aside the sanction granted by the Lokpal to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to file a chargesheet against Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Mahua Moitra inrelation to the cash-for-query row.

Issuing notice to Moitra on an appeal filed by the Lokpal, a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said the anti-corruption ombudsman need not, for now, comply with the high court’s December 19, 2025, direction asking it to take a fresh decision on the sanction within a month.

The bench said it will examine the interplay between sections 20(7) (a) and 20(8) of The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.

“We are not permitting the prosecution as of now.

The (Lokpal) order has been set aside.

What Mr Ranjit Kumar (appearing for Lokpal) wants is the direction upon his client to pass a composite order which as per the interpretation of the Lokpal Act (which) we prima facie agree maybe an incorrect reading of section 20(7) and section 20(8),” the bench said.

Section 20(7) (a) says that the Lokpal, after considering reports from agencies and after obtaining the comments of the competent authority and the public servant concerned, may grant sanction to its prosecution wing or investigating agency to file a chargesheet or direct closure of a report against a public servant before the special court.

Section 20(8) says that the Lokpal may, after taking a decision under sub-section (7) (a) on the filing of the chargesheet, direct its prosecution wing or any investigating agency (including theDelhiSpecial Police Establishment) to initiate prosecution in the special court in respect of the cases investigated by the agency.

Setting aside the November 12, 2025, Lokpal order granting sanction to file a chargesheet, the high court said the anti-corruption ombudsman hadwrongly interpreted sections20(7)(a) and 20(8) to mean two separate sanctions.

“The interpretation adopted by the learned Lokpal, suggesting the existence of two stages of sanction, one under Section 20(7)(a) and another purportedly under Section 20(8) after the filing of the chargesheet, is wholly erroneous,” the high court said.

In paragraph 89, the high court asked the Lokpal “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.”
Justice Bagchi said, “We will want to examine the findings…where does that say power of the Lokpal is circumscribed till investigation, it does not have a role in prosecution.

This we require to examine the light of section 12 of the Act (dealing with the Lokpal’s prosecution wing).

Because that is the foundation of it (High Court) interpreting that section 20(7) and 20(8) need to converge.”
Appearing for the CBI, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, said, “I support the High Court order in so far as it gives interpretation to the Act, though respondent (Moitra) needs to be investigated.”
Justice Bagchi said, “Mr 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 charge sheet and the conduct of prosecution.

And when the conduct of prosecution comes into interplay, see the history of Lokpal Act.

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.”
“So, does the Lokpal not apply its mind when the sanction under Section 20(7)(a), that he’s satisfied about the fairness of investigation?… As soon as it is filed, it would be duty to conduct the prosecution, through the prosecution agency which is aligned with the investigating agency.

But in 20(8), the Lokpal takes the second call, that this investigation fairly done should not go to waste by an indolent prosecution.

So Lokpal may say we will withhold the prosecution from the investigating agency and may direct prosecution through my agency,” he added.

“Let’s examine the interplay of the sections in light of BNSS [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita] and the Prevention of Corruption Act,” he further said.

Kumar said there was an interpretation issue.

“There is contradiction in three judgments given by same bench.

For functioning of Lokpal, we need an authoritative pronouncement so that our procedure is put intact.

That is the only purpose we have come here,” he added.

“It should not be misunderstood why we are here.

It’s not about one or two individuals.

It is about interplay of the different parts of the section,” Kumar said.

Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta, who appeared for Moitra, said that in case the Supreme Court was intending to stay the high court’s order, “there should be status quo because there cannot be a situation where the judgement is kept in abeyance but they go ahead de hors the judgement”.

The CJI said, “We can only say para 89 (directing the Lokpal to decide sanction afresh) of the order need not be complied with”.

Moitra is accused of allegedly sharing her Parliament login credentials with businessman Darshan Hiranandani in exchange for cash and expensive gifts.

The TMC MP had admitted she gave her Parliament login and password details to Hiranandani but denied taking any cash from him.

BJP MP Nishikant Dubey had complained to the Lokpal of India in October 2023, accusing Moitra of taking cash for bribes.

Following this, the Lokpal had directed the CBI to conduct a preliminary enquiry (precursor to a First Information Report) in the matter.

In February 2024, the CBI submitted its report.

In March 2024, the Lokpal ordered a formal investigation by the CBI into the complaint.

The CBI submitted its report to the Lokpal in June 2025.

The next month, the Lokpal directed Moitra to provide her comments to the CBI’s investigation report.

After granting Moitra an opportunity of hearing, the Lokpal passed the sanction order on November 12, 2025.