Top News

Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi has moved the Supreme Court challenging a series of directions issued by the Allahabad High Court in a case concerning allegations that his assets are disproportionate to his known sources of income. Gandhi has also filed a separate transfer petition in connection with the matter. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the challenge on August 17 before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana.

Why Rahul Gandhi Has Approached Supreme Court

The challenge relates to proceedings initiated following allegations raised by BJP worker S. Vignesh Shishir, who sought an investigation into Gandhi and members of his family over alleged disproportionate assets, as per reports. The Allahabad High Court had in May directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to examine the allegations.

Gandhi's latest petition challenges subsequent directions issued by the High Court concerning the status and progress of the investigation.

Allahabad HC Sought Fresh CBI Report

The dispute intensified after the High Court asked the CBI to provide an updated account of its investigation.

In an order dated July 20, the court directed a senior CBI official to personally submit a fresh affidavit containing detailed information about the progress of the inquiry. The direction was issued after the bench found the agency's earlier affidavit inadequate and inconsistent with its previous instructions.

The bench, comprising Justice Brij Raj Singh and Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan, also observed that the ED had completed the procedural steps required from its side. The agency, the court said, would remain at liberty to take further action if the investigation produced material warranting such steps.

The High Court further ordered that the proceedings remain part-heard before the same bench and scheduled the next hearing for August 20.

It is these directions, among others, that Gandhi has now taken before the Supreme Court.

Case Originated From Petition By BJP Worker

The underlying proceedings stem from a criminal writ petition filed by Karnataka resident S. Vignesh Shishir.

The July 20 order followed a hearing that lasted nearly two hours in the judges' chambers. During the proceedings, the High Court expressed dissatisfaction with the CBI's account of its investigation and sought greater clarity about the agency's progress.

The allegations concern claims that Gandhi possesses assets disproportionate to his declared sources of income. The investigation directions issued by the High Court have now become the subject of Gandhi's Supreme Court challenge.

The apex court's consideration of the petition will determine whether the disputed High Court directions remain in force or undergo further judicial scrutiny.

Separate Citizenship Case Also Pending

Shishir is separately pursuing another case against Gandhi before the Allahabad High Court, this one involving allegations concerning his citizenship.

The petitioner has alleged that Gandhi violated citizenship laws by holding a British passport in addition to his Indian citizenship.

In that case, the High Court had initially directed registration of an FIR against Gandhi. However, the order was subsequently stayed by the judge concerned, who later recused himself after Shishir made social media posts related to the proceedings.

That citizenship petition remains pending before the Allahabad High Court and is separate from the disproportionate assets proceedings that Gandhi has now challenged before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court To Hear Challenge On August 17

The Supreme Court hearing on August 17 will bring the dispute over the Allahabad High Court's investigation-related directions before the country's highest court.

Gandhi's petition seeks judicial intervention against the orders requiring further details from the CBI and allowing the ED to proceed if the investigation uncovers material justifying further action.

The case is expected to draw attention to both the scope of the investigative directions and the procedural questions raised by the High Court's handling of the allegations.