Allahabad HC Finds CBI's Counter Affidavit Inadequate, Directs Joint Director to Depose on Investigation Progress

The Lucknow Bench rejected the CBI's initial response as non-compliant, directed a Joint Director to file a fresh affidavit, and kept the writ petition record in sealed cover pending the next hearing on 20 August 2026.

A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench, comprising Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Brij Raj Singh, on 20 July 2026 found that the counter affidavit filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4180 of 2026 did not comply with the court's earlier directions and failed to disclose any discernible progress in the investigation. The bench directed that a fresh counter affidavit be filed by the Joint Director or Head of Zone, ACHQ Zone, CBI, New Delhi. The petition, filed by S. Vignesh Shishir appearing in person, is kept in sealed cover in the safe custody of the Senior Registrar of the court.

The Writ Petition and Earlier Directions

The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was taken up at a prior hearing on 12 May 2026. At that sitting, the petitioner, appearing in person, sought to implead several Union of India ministries as additional respondents. The bench allowed the impleadment application and brought on record the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), the Department of Revenue under the Ministry of Finance, and the Ministry of Corporate Affairs as opposite parties no. 8, 9 and 10 respectively. Sri Raj Kumar Singh, Central Government Counsel, accepted notices on behalf of the newly added parties.

At the same May hearing, the CBI's counsel Sri Anurag Kumar Singh placed before the court a letter dated 11 May 2026 from Mr. Praveen Kumar, I.P.S., Superintendent of Police, CBI, AC-II, New Delhi, confirming that the petitioner's complaint had been received and that the CBI would file its response within eight weeks. Separately, counsel for the Enforcement Directorate Sri Kuldeep Srivastava placed a letter dated 9 May 2026 from Mr. Naveen Rana, Deputy Director, HIU-1(1), stating that the ED had also received the complaint and would verify the allegations. Both letters were taken on record.

The bench in its May order directed all respondents, including the newly impleaded parties, to file counter affidavits within eight weeks, and stipulated that the affidavits of the CBI and the ED were to be separate from those of the other respondents represented by the Deputy Solicitor General of India.

CBI Response Found Deficient

When the matter was called on 20 July 2026, the CBI's counter affidavit had been filed through Sri Anurag Kumar Singh. The bench, on perusal, found that it did not constitute a proper counter affidavit in the terms directed by the earlier order. The bench recorded that it was “unable to understand about the progress of the investigation done by the C.B.I.” The affidavit was accordingly not accepted as satisfying the earlier direction.

The bench directed that on the next date a fresh counter affidavit of the CBI shall be filed by its Joint Director or Head of Zone, ACHQ Zone, CBI, New Delhi. The affidavit is required to indicate the further progress of the investigation, if any, categorically so that the court can assess what steps have been taken.

Enforcement Directorate's Response Accepted

The position with respect to the Enforcement Directorate was different. The bench, on examining the ED's counter affidavit filed by Sri Kuldeep Srivastava during the course of the hearing, found that the required steps had been taken by the agency. The bench added that if during investigation any relevant information supported by material and documents is received, the ED may proceed strictly in accordance with law, and that the ED need not be “helpless in proceeding further by following the due procedure of law” if any misdeed or illegal act comes to light.

Because the ED's counter affidavit was filed during the hearing without a prior application number, the Office was directed to allot an application number to it.

Other Respondents and Petitioner's Applications

Sri Neerav Chitravanshi and Sri Amar Mani Tiwari filed a memo of appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 6 and were granted four weeks to file a detailed and exhaustive counter affidavit. Sri S.B. Pandey, Senior Advocate and Deputy Solicitor General of India, assisted by Sri Raj Kumar Singh and Sri Anand Dwivedi, was similarly granted four weeks to file a detailed counter affidavit on behalf of opposite parties no. 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10. Opposite party no. 7 is the Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office, Government of India.

The petitioner, appearing in person, filed two interlocutory applications bearing I.A. Nos. 7 of 2026 and 8 of 2026, both supported by affidavits. The bench directed Sri S.B. Pandey to seek specific comments from the competent authority on the prayers made in those applications and to apprise the court at the next hearing whether any appropriate steps are being considered. Both applications are to be disposed of on the next date. Sri Pandey was also directed to file replies to those applications.

The petitioner had argued, relying on case law and judgments, that the reliefs he was seeking could properly be prayed for by way of a writ petition under Article 226. The bench noted that this submission would be tested after counter affidavits and rejoinder affidavits of the respective parties are on record.

Sealed Cover Proceedings Continue

The paper-book of the writ petition had been directed to be kept in sealed cover by an earlier order. The bench reiterated on 20 July 2026 that the paper-book along with all loose documents provided by the petitioner shall remain in sealed cover in the safe custody of the Senior Registrar. The seal is to be opened only on the next date of listing. After the application numbers for the documents filed during the hearing are allotted, the record is to be returned to sealed cover.

The bench also directed that on the next date the petition shall be listed as part-heard before the same bench, and that appropriate orders from the Chief Justice for constituting the bench may be obtained. The case is to be taken up immediately after lunch in the Chamber.

Order

The matter is listed for 20 August 2026. The CBI is directed to file a fresh counter affidavit through its Joint Director or Head of Zone, ACHQ Zone, CBI, New Delhi, disclosing the progress of investigation in categorical terms. Opposite party no. 6 and the Union of India respondents have four weeks to file their respective counter affidavits. I.A. Nos. 7 and 8 of 2026 filed by the petitioner are to be disposed of at the next hearing. The record remains in sealed cover with the Senior Registrar. Names of Sri Neerav Chitravanshi and Sri Amar Mani Tiwari are to be printed in the cause list as counsel for opposite party no. 6 when the case is next listed.