Back
Orders CBI Probe Into ED Allegations Against CM Mann's Aides
CHANDIGARH – In a significant development, the has directed the to take over the probe into corruption allegations levelled by the against key aides of Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor passed the order on Monday, disposing of a filed by advocate .
The Court found that the had failed to act on the ED's communications under (PMLA), which detailed a "cash for transfers" and policy-fixing racket allegedly run from the Chief Minister's Office (CMO). The CBI has been directed to register an FIR and submit a status report within two months. The State government and police have been ordered to extend full cooperation.
The ED's Allegations: A Network of Influence and Bribery
The controversy stems from an ongoing ED money-laundering investigation linked to land allotments by the . During searches conducted in , the ED claimed to have recovered incriminating WhatsApp chats, documents, and cash amounting to over ₹1 crore. According to the ED's letter to the Punjab DGP dated , a private individual named Nitin Gohal acted as an intermediary for Rajbir Singh Ghuman, the Officer on Special Duty (OSD) to Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann.
The agency alleged that Gohal, in collusion with Ghuman and others, including Bir Devinder and Jitin Gohal, operated an organised network to influence government transfers, leak confidential documents, secure arms licences, and manipulate tender conditions. The ED cited 21 specific instances of interference in transfers across departments including the police and civil services, and 11 chats indicating receipt of monetary kickbacks. The agency further alleged that were laundered into real estate, including a plot in Mohali where "unearned increase" was avoided.
Inaction by Prompts PIL
Despite the ED sending two reminders, the
did not register an FIR. Advocate
then filed a PIL, arguing that the delay was a deliberate attempt to shield senior officers. The petition also highlighted that after the court issued notice, the GMADA suddenly ordered the demolition of the petitioner's farm stay—a move the court described as
"suggestive of
."
The State of Punjab vehemently opposed the PIL, questioning the petitioner's credentials and the maintainability of the . Senior Advocate argued that the petitioner was a "stranger" to the ED's communications, had selective litigation history, and was running a commercial farm stay facing legal action. The State maintained that the information from the ED required a "" to verify the legibility and authenticity of digital evidence before an FIR could be lodged.
Court Rejects Preliminary Objections, Upholds Petitioner's Standing
The High Court dismissed the State's objections, noting that the petitioner had a credible record of filing PILs on governance and police reforms.
"Non-entertainment of two PILs filed by the petitioner was case specific and does not lay down any proposition adversely impacting filing of present PIL by the petitioner,"
the Bench observed. The Court also noted the "undue hot-haste" with which the demolition notice was issued against the petitioner after the PIL was filed, lending weight to the claim of victimisation.
On the legal question, the Court held that information shared by the ED under Section 66(2) PMLA, which disclosed cognisable offences, obliged the jurisdictional police to register an FIR. Relying on the 's ruling in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014), the Bench stated that the "necessary action" under Section 66(2) contemplates the commencement of investigation, not a leisurely .
Sharp Criticism of 's ""
The Court was particularly scathing of the Punjab Bureau of Investigation's (PBI) handling of the matter. A note submitted by the PBI showed that over a month was spent on discussions, issuing notices to persons named in the chats, and only then asking the ED for legible copies. The Court found this sequence "hollow" and observed that
"time is being bought only to formulate strategies to save guilty and manipulate the available evidence."
Significantly, the Court noted that while notices were issued to several individuals,
Rajbir Singh Ghuman, the OSD to the CM, was never associated with the inquiry.
"What was required at the level of
was to examine the contents... and if it did disclose commission of cognizable offence, which it does in our considered view, an FIR ought to have been registered,"
the judgment stated. The Court added that the material shared by the ED
"
indicated involvement of high public officials in acts of corruption."
Key Observations
"The argument of the petitioner that the time consumed by the PBI in the name of preliminary investigation… is being utilized to distort the evidence and shield senior officers… is not entirely sans merit."
"Asking for legible copies after about a month of extensive deliberation… lends credence to the petitioner’s contention that time is being bought only to formulate strategies to save guilty and manipulate the available evidence."
"The material shared by ED indicated involvement of high public officials in acts of corruption and at least required registering of FIR so that proper investigation in the matter would be carried out. This is not the response of the ."
"The fact that a demolition order came to be passed against the petitioner soon after filing of the present petition appears unnatural… suggestive of ."
CBI Takes Over; Political Reactions
The ED welcomed the decision, with Additional Solicitor General
stating that the government had
"indulged in Rajnitik Dharam instead of Rajdharam"
by not acting on the letters. The CBI has now been tasked with registering an FIR and conducting a thorough investigation.
Political reactions have been sharp. Punjab Congress President Pargat Singh termed the order a vindication of his party's stance, saying the
"looting party from Delhi has looted everything"
and warning officials to fulfil their duties. The Shiromani Akali Dal, which had earlier demanded a CBI probe, also welcomed the decision. Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann has previously dismissed the allegations as a "BJP conspiracy" and maintained that there is no truth to the claims.
The matter will next be heard on , when the CBI is expected to submit its first status report.
