Follow us on Google News
The Delhi High Court has put in abeyance its earlier order directing the initiation of criminal proceedings against six former and serving Central Bureau of Investigation officers over allegedly false statements made before a court in a case involving former IRS officer Ashok Kumar Aggarwal.
Justice Mini Pushkarna, in an order passed on November 3, temporarily suspended the October 6 direction that had required a Special CBI Judge to file a written complaint against the six officers.
The matter will next be heard on February 4, 2027.
Earlier Order Directed Criminal Complaint
On October 6, Justice Madhu Jain had allowed a plea filed by Ashok Kumar Aggarwal and directed criminal action against six CBI officials.
The officers named were Sushil Dewan, Vineet Vinayak, Amit Kumar, Raman Tyagi, Prem Kumar Gautam and Md Azad.
The earlier order arose from allegations that the officers had made a false statement before a court about correspondence between the CBI and the government regarding further legal action in a case involving Aggarwal.
The High Court had found a reasonable basis to examine whether the statement placed before the court was inconsistent with the actual position reflected in official records.
Two Former CBI Officers Seek Recall
The fresh order followed applications filed by former CBI officers Sushil Dewan and Raman Tyagi seeking recall of the October 6 judgment.
They argued that the earlier order had been passed without giving them an adequate opportunity to be heard.
According to the applicants, only Dewan had been a party to the appeal, while the other officers had not been issued notice.
Dewan also claimed that notice had been sent to an incorrect email address.
The CBI supported the applications seeking recall of the earlier direction.
Justice Pushkarna subsequently ordered that the direction for initiation of the criminal complaint remain in abeyance while the applications are considered.
Case Originated From Disproportionate Assets Probe
The dispute traces back to a CBI case against former IRS officer Ashok Kumar Aggarwal over allegations that he possessed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.
In January 2016, the Delhi High Court held that the sanction for his prosecution was invalid, following which he was discharged.
The CBI then considered challenging that decision before the Supreme Court.
However, the Ministry of Law and Justice opined in June 2016 that there was no reasonable ground to pursue the matter further.
The Department of Personnel and Training communicated that opinion to the CBI in July 2016.
Court Examined CBI’s 2016 Reply
The controversy arose when Aggarwal later sought the return of documents seized during the investigation.
In a reply dated August 2, 2016, the CBI stated that correspondence with the Ministry regarding further legal action was “under way”.
The High Court later examined the record and found that no such correspondence was taking place at that stage.
Instead, the CBI was internally considering whether to seek reconsideration of the decision and obtain further legal opinion.
The court examined successive drafts of the CBI’s reply and found that an earlier version had stated that the DoPT had rejected the proposal to file an appeal before the Supreme Court.
That statement was subsequently removed and replaced with a handwritten assertion that correspondence with the Ministry was still underway.
Earlier Bench Found Prima Facie Basis for Inquiry
Justice Madhu Jain had held that the change in wording could not be dismissed merely as an imprecise expression.
The court found a reasonable foundation for examining whether a false statement had been placed before the court.
It also rejected the argument that the later correction of the position in an August 9, 2016 reply or the absence of prejudice to Aggarwal was sufficient to avoid further action.
The earlier order concluded that the preparation, alteration, vetting, processing, approval and filing of the reply, when read with the preceding drafts and file notings, provided a prima facie basis to examine the role of the concerned officers.
Fresh Order Does Not Decide Merits
The November 3 order does not overturn the October 6 judgment or decide whether the six officers are ultimately liable.
It only keeps the earlier direction for initiation of the criminal complaint in abeyance while the recall applications are heard.
The High Court will now examine the arguments that the officers were not properly heard before the earlier order was passed.
Until then, the direction requiring the Special CBI Judge to initiate criminal proceedings against the six officers will remain suspended.
The case will return before the court on February 4, 2027.
About the author — Suvedita Nath is a science student with a growing interest in cybercrime and digital safety. She writes on online activity, cyber threats, and technology-driven risks. Her work focuses on clarity, accuracy, and public awareness.
