Back
Rahul Gandhi Assets Case: Seeks Fresh Response, Finds Affidavit Lacks Clarity
In a pointed rebuke to India’s premier investigative agency, the today directed the () to file a explaining the progress of its probe into allegations relating to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s assets. A of Justice
Rajesh Singh Chauhan
and Justice
Brij Raj Singh
held that the
’s earlier submission fell short of what was required, terming it
"not a
in terms of earlier order"
and expressing plain dismay that the court was
"unable to understand about the progress of the investigation."
The development came during a heated in an ongoing filed by BJP worker S Vignesh Shishir , who had moved the court seeking over the investigation into complaints he had levelled against Rahul Gandhi and members of his family. While the () received a clean chit for its compliance, the ’s ambiguous filing triggered a sharp court-ordered reset.
A Petition with Political Divides
The case, registered as Criminal Misc. No. 4180 of 2026 , has its origins in a series of complaints filed by the petitioner, a BJP activist, who alleged financial irregularities and sought directions to the , , and the () to investigate. During earlier hearings, the court had several Union ministries – including the , , and the – to ensure a comprehensive inquiry.
On , the Bench had given all agencies eight weeks to file detailed counter affidavits and report on the steps taken. The , represented by counsel , submitted an affidavit on the promised date, but it quickly ran into judicial headwinds.
’s Sketchy Explanation Angers the Court
When the matter was taken up on , the Bench did not mince words. After perusing the ’s , the judges observed:
“The of C.B.I. does not appear to be a in terms of earlier order. Even we are unable to understand about the progress of the investigation done by the C.B.I.”
The court then directed that a fresh and be filed before the next hearing, to be sworn by no less than the Joint Director/Head of Zone, A.C.H.Q. Zone, , New Delhi . This unusual directive underscores the court’s insistence on clarity and accountability from the highest levels of the agency.
Wins Judicial Approval, For Now
In contrast, the ’s received a much more favourable reading. The court noted that “the required steps have been taken by the E.D.” and went on to emphasise that the agency need not be “helpless in proceeding further” if any evidence of illegality surfaces during the investigation. This green signal from the High Court allows the to proceed independently under the or other statutes, should the material warrant such action.
Union Ministries and New Applications
Senior Advocate and Deputy Solicitor General , representing the and several newly ministries, took four weeks’ time to file a . He was also asked to seek specific comments from the competent authorities on the fresh applications moved by the during that day’s hearing. These applications, numbered I.A. 7 and 8 of 2026, contain undisclosed prayers that the court intends to dispose of on the next date after receiving the government’s response.
The , brought in as opposite party no.7, also sought more time, and the Bench granted it four weeks to file its .
What Lies Ahead
The case has been marked “” and listed for , with a clear expectation that the revamped affidavit will be on record. The continues, and the entire remains in the safe custody of the Senior Registrar.
By demanding a Joint Director-level affidavit and by pointedly recording dissatisfaction with the ’s work, the has signalled that it will not let investigative opacity stand in the way of . The message to the is unambiguous: when the court asks for a progress report, it expects substance, not evasion.
