Lokpal has directed two complainants, who had raised the issue of allegations against the Sebi Chairperson Madhabi Puri Buch, to articulate the allegations which may constitute "offence of corruption" under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and state why the findings of the Supreme Court in its January 3 decision would not come in the way of an investigation by Lokpal, among other things.
On January 3, the top court dismissed pleas seeking transfer of the probe into allegations of violations of securities laws by the Adani group companies to a special investigation team and said that there was no need to question the the market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India’s (Sebi's) probe.
Lokpal, which observed that the latest complaints seem to have been prompted and to be based on the August 10 report released by the short-seller Hindenburg Research, stated that its observations on the complaints should not be construed as an expression of opinion. The anti-corruption agency added that the direction is only a procedural one issued for testing the question of tenability of the complaint and to record a prima facie view as required under Section 20 of the Act of 2013.
The agency was hearing two complaints including one filed by Lok Sabha MP Mahua Moitra. In the order, the agency said that the matter will be heard again on October 17.
Also read: Mahua Moitra of TMC moves Lokpal to file her complaint against Sebi chief Buch
Lokpal asked the complainants to state how personal investments made or income earned by the named public servant and more so, the income earned prior to entering the public office, would constitute an offence of corruption as defined under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It also asked the complainants to state how non-disclosure of such income and assets would qualify as corruption under the Act.
The order added, "For certain acts of commission or omission, may at best tantamount to an impropriety, but need not necessarily be reckoned as an illegality or for that matter an offence of corruption, ascribable to Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988".
The order asked the complainants whether the matter of these investments and income would come under its purview at all and if the subject matter of the complaint is in issue before the Supreme Court by way of an application. On the latter, the agency said that, if the complaint is in issue before the Supreme Court, then that fact would come in the way of the agency's inquiring into the same matter.
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
