Cash For Query Row: Delhi High Court Declines Urgent Orders On Mahua Moitra's Plea To Stop Lokpal From Hearing BJP MP Nishikant Dubey

The Delhi High Court on Friday refused to pass urgent orders in a plea filed by Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra praying that complainant Nishikant Dubey be not heard in the proceedings pending against her before the Lokpal of India on October 06, in relation to the cash for query row.

Moitra made the prayer alleging that Dubey leaked confidential information and documents related to the Lokpal proceedings in the media.

A division bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar said that at this stage, it is not appropriate to pass any orders in Moitra's plea.

However, the Court said that the TMC MP may press her application seeking the relief before the Lokpal of India.

Advocate Samudra Sarangi appearing for Moitra submitted that Dubey was guilty of leaking the information which is confidential in nature, and thus, he should not be heard by the Lokpal on the next date of hearing.

Sarangi said that the petition was not on merits but on the limited issue of alleged confidentiality breaches by Dubey regarding the Lokpal proceedings.

Taking the Court through the facts of the case, Sarangi said that an order was passed by the Lokpal of India on July 16, after an investigation was done by the CBI, inviting her comments in the matter.

As per Sarangi, before Moitra could give her comments, there was an alleged confidentiality breach by Dubey.

He then apprised the Bench about an order passed by a single judge in August directing that confidentiality shall be “strictly maintained by all the concerned parties” in the matter.

Sarangi said that in September, no objection was raised by Moitra before the Lokpal in giving an opportunity of being heard to Dubey, even though no such requirement is mentioned in the statute.

It was submitted by Sarangi that after the said concession, Dubey gave certain confidential documents not available anywhere.

It was submitted that on September 19, Times Now news channel ran the documents which included excerpts of readings and filings strictly confidential to the proceedings pending before the Lokpal of India.

The Court was informed that Moitra then wrote to the Lokpal of India seeking action against Dubey, followed by another letter.

In this context, it was prayed that on the next date of hearing on October 06, Dubey must not be heard by the Lokpal of India.

“I cannot defend myself in the media. I am bound by confidentiality. The excerpts are directly verbatim are read out in the media which make me look guilty. I am at the stage of pre sanction… The hearing is on October 06, let them not appear on 06th. Let me continue with the Lokpal matter,” Sarangi said.

On this, the Court remarked: “You have disclosed that you (earlier) said that no objection. How can you now say that the writ court should say “no, no”…. That means today we are holding that the complainant has leaked. How can we decide this question?… We have to then hold that he is guilty and that he has leaked it.”

“We have to record a finding that he is guilty. Can we do that? At least realise the limits of the constitutional courts under Article 226,” the Court added.

The Bench further said that the single judge has already passed an order and that the Lokpal of India is seized of the matter, adding that Moitra's prayer will be examined by the Lokpal which can pass any order if it deems fit.

Moitra had been accused of receiving cash in exchange for posing questions on behalf of businessman and friend Darshan Hiranandani.

In an interview with The Indian Express, she had accepted the fact that she had provided her Parliament login and password details to Hiranandani, however, she had refuted the claim of receiving any cash from him.

The dispute arose after Dubey wrote a complaint to the Lok Sabha Speaker alleging that Moitra purportedly took bribes to ask questions in the Parliament. Dubey claimed that the genesis of the said allegations was a letter addressed to him by Dehadrai.

Moitra then sent a legal notice to Dubey, Dehadrai and media houses wherein she denied the allegations made against her.

Tile: MAHUA MOITRA v. LOKPAL OF INDIA & ORS