The Allahabad High Court recently asked the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to examine a complaint which alleged disproportionate assets in possession of Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi and update the court on any developments.

A Division Bench comprising Justices Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Zafeer Ahmad gave the directions to the central agencies on May 12 while hearing a criminal writ petition filed by S. Vignesh Shishir, a BJP worker from Karnataka.

Mr. Shishir had also approached this court in the past seeking an investigation into the alleged British citizenship of Mr. Gandhi. The High Court had ordered registration of FIR on his complaint last month but revoked the orders the same day stating that Mr. Gandhi was not given an opportunity to be heard.

During the hearing of the present complaint, the CBI’s counsel informed the court that the agency had received the complaint and would place its response on record within eight weeks. The ED’s counsel too gave a similar reply.

Hence, the court said that the allegations should be examined in accordance with legal procedure. It added that the agencies were free to take any step permitted under law.

All parties, including those recently added to the proceedings, were asked to submit their responses within eight weeks and updated status of the complaint be included in these filings.

The petitioner, appearing in person, sought the inclusion of several government departments as parties in the matter, including the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), the Department of Revenue under the Ministry of Finance, and the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. The court allowed the request after considering the reasons presented.

The Central government’s counsel informed the Bench that the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) had conveyed oral instructions and sought additional time to file a counter affidavit regarding the issues raised in the petition.

When questioned on the maintainability of the petition’s prayers, the petitioner cited legal precedents to argue that the relief sought could be pursued through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Bench said the issue would be examined after responses and rejoinders from all parties were filed.

The court further directed that the documents submitted by the petitioner be kept in a sealed cover, in line with an earlier order.

The matter is scheduled to be heard next on July 20.