New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday provided interim relief to Congress leader and Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi by staying further proceedings in the Allahabad High Court on a petition seeking Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) probes into allegations of disproportionate assets against him.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana issued notice on Gandhi’s plea challenging the High Court’s directions. The apex court ordered the CBI and ED not to submit any probe reports or related material to the High Court pursuant to the earlier orders. It also directed the Allahabad High Court to defer its next hearing, which had been fixed for August 20, until further orders from the Supreme Court.
The controversy arises from a criminal writ petition filed by Karnataka-based BJP worker S. Vignesh Shishir before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The petitioner sought a full investigation by the central agencies into claims that Gandhi possessed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. In May 2026, the High Court directed the CBI and ED to examine and verify the allegations in accordance with law and to keep the court informed of progress. In a subsequent order in July, the bench expressed dissatisfaction with the CBI’s earlier response and directed a senior officer to file a fresh personal affidavit detailing the status of the inquiry. The matter was treated as part-heard.
Gandhi approached the Supreme Court challenging these directions. He contended that the High Court had ordered what amounted to a “fishing” or “roving” inquiry without issuing notice to him, without hearing him, and through in-chamber proceedings that lacked transparency. He also filed a separate transfer petition seeking to move the case out of the Allahabad High Court, preferably to the Delhi High Court or the Supreme Court itself, citing concerns over fairness and jurisdiction.
During Monday’s hearing, senior counsel appearing for Gandhi argued that the High Court’s approach violated settled principles of natural justice and writ jurisdiction. The Additional Solicitor General, representing the CBI, informed the bench that the agency had so far only verified the complaint and described the allegations, if true, as serious. The bench observed that if the matter was so grave, the agency should not require repeated judicial impetus to act, while emphasising the need to examine the High Court’s manner of issuing directions.
The Supreme Court’s interim order effectively freezes the High Court process and any reporting by the agencies for the time being. The matter will now proceed on the notice issued, with responses expected from the relevant parties. The development offers temporary relief to Gandhi while the apex court examines the legality and propriety of the High Court’s supervisory directions in the case.
