Signing you in

"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.

Earlier, on March 13, the top court had paused a part of the Delhi High Court's December 19, 2025 order that allowed the Lokpal to consider granting sanction to the CBI to file a chargesheet against Moitra. The court had also issued notices to Moitra, the CBI and BJP MP Nishikant Dubey, who is the complainant in the case.

The Lokpal has challenged the High Court's ruling that separate sanctions for filing a charge sheet and for launching prosecution are not envisaged under the Lokpal and Lok Ayuktas Act, 2013.

On December 19 last year, the High Court set aside the Lokpal's November 12, 2025 order granting sanction to the CBI to file a charge sheet against Moitra.

In paragraph 89 of its judgement, the court had said, "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 Chief Justice-led bench had paused this part of the judgement while issuing notices on a batch of pleas concerning the powers and procedure under Section 20 of the Lokpal Act.

The High Court had held that Section 20 did not provide for a separate sanction for filing a chargesheet and that sanction was to be granted only in a composite manner for prosecution. It said there was a "clear departure" from the procedure mandated under the Act and that the Lokpal had erred in its understanding and interpretation of the law.

The Lokpal moved the Supreme Court against this interpretation. Senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the Lokpal, had submitted that the ombudsman was aggrieved by the interpretation given to the Act by the High Court and was not concerned with any particular individual.

Solicitor General Mehta, appearing for the CBI, had said the agency supported the interpretation given by the High Court and added that the respondent TMC MP needed to be investigated.

The law officer had said the issue was whether the law contemplated two rounds of sanction, one for filing the charge sheet and the second for initiating prosecution.

During the earlier hearing, Justice Bagchi said, "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 also said Lokpal may withhold the prosecution from the investigating agency and may direct prosecution through its own agency, adding, "Let's examine the interplay of the sections in light of BNSS and the Prevention of Corruption Act."