Updated on: Aug 17, 2026, 15:30:33 IST By Utkarsh Anand Prefer HTon Google Share via Copy link The Supreme Court on Monday restrained the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) from submitting any further report of investigation before the Allahabad High Court in a case alleging that leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi possesses assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, while pulling up the agencies over their failure to act on their own if they had substantial material against the Congress leader.
The Supreme Court on Monday granted relief to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in connection with the case of disproportionate assets. (File Photo/PTI) A bench, comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, issued notice on Gandhi's petition and ordered: “Meanwhile, no report shall be submitted by the CBI, ED or any other agency in terms of the Allahabad High Court’s order.”
Duirng the proceedings, the bench questioned why the agencies needed a court direction to act if they genuinely possessed evidence of disproportionate assets, and asked whether they had taken any suo motu action against Gandhi.
The bench was hearing Gandhi’s challenge to a series of orders passed by the Allahabad High Court in proceedings initiated on a petition by BJP worker S Vignesh Shishir, who has sought a probe against Gandhi and other members of his family.
The bench made it clear that if an investigating agency has information about disproportionate assets belonging to an individual, it can proceed in accordance with law on its own and does not require a court order to do so.
The bench questioned Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the CBI, on why the agency had remained inactive if the allegations were as serious as claimed.
“If it is so serious, why has your agency kept quiet?
Do you need a direction from the Court, Mr Raju?
Have you taken any suo motu action?
No, right?” it asked the law officer.
The Supreme Court’s intervention comes against the backdrop of the Allahabad High Court directing the CBI and ED in May to verify allegations made by Shishir that Gandhi possessed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.
The high court subsequently sought a fresh affidavit from the CBI setting out the status of its inquiry.
In its July 20 order, the high court expressed dissatisfaction with the agency’s response, observing that it was unable to understand the progress made in the investigation.
“The counter affidavit of CBI does not appear to be a counter affidavit in terms of earlier order.
Even we are unable to understand about the progress of the investigation done by the CBI,” the high court had said, while also recording that the ED had taken the required steps and was free to proceed further if its investigation yielded material warranting action.
Gandhi challenged these directions before the Supreme Court, arguing against the manner in which the proceedings had progressed before the High Court.
During Monday’s hearing, the bench also questioned the High Court’s decision to pass directions affecting Gandhi without first giving him an opportunity of hearing.
The CJI-led bench observed that while the police do not require prior permission from a court to act when a cognisable offence is committed, a court exercising its jurisdiction to issue directions is nevertheless expected to follow the principles of natural justice.
“Suppose somebody commits murders, etc. police do not need permission.
But what appears to us is, subject to the assistance provided to us from both sides, if the court wants to issue a direction, the courts are expected to follow the principle of natural justice,” it remarked.
The bench also questioned the need for judicial intervention to trigger an investigation if the agencies themselves possessed material warranting action.
Shishir’s allegations against Gandhi relate to alleged possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.
The BJP worker has separately pursued another case before the Allahabad High Court alleging violations of citizenship laws by Gandhi, including a claim that he had held a British passport in addition to his Indian passport.
That separate case had earlier seen the high court order registration of an FIR against Gandhi, before the judge withheld the direction and recused himself after Shishir made social media posts concerning the proceedings.
The citizenship case continues to remain pending before the high court.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR Utkarsh Anand Utkarsh Anand is the National Legal Editor at Hindustan Times, where he leads the newspaper's coverage of the Supreme Court, constitutional law, the judiciary and the Union law ministry.
He joined Hindustan Times in 2020 after stints at Press Trust of India (PTI), The Indian Express and CNN-News18, and has over two decades of experience reporting on law, governance and public policy.
His work has focussed on some of India's most consequential constitutional and legal developments, including the Supreme Court's judgments on Article 370, marriage equality, decriminalisation of homosexuality, the Babri Masjid dispute, electoral reforms and judicial appointments.
He specialises in making complex legal proceedings and judgments accessible to readers while examining their wider social and political impact.
Beyond daily reportage, Utkarsh has led investigative projects and enterprise reporting that have shaped public debate and prompted institutional responses.
His work has received several journalism awards, including the Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Award.
As National Legal Editor, he has also played a key role in expanding Hindustan Times' legal journalism footprint, mentoring reporters and strengthening coverage across platforms.
