One complaint was filed by a sitting Lok Sabha member, regarding which, the Lokpal said that it “falls short” in persuading them to order any probe.
“It falls short of persuading us to take a firm view that there exists a prima facie case as per Section 20 of the (Lokpal) Act of 2013 to proceed in the matter including to direct a preliminary inquiry or investigation, for the same reasons and logic spelt out (in the first complaint) hitherto,” the Lokpal said, however, he did not mention the name of the Lok Sabha MP.
Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra had said on September 13 that she had lodged a complaint against the Sebi chief with the Lokpal. She urged the anti-graft ombudsman to forward the complaint to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) or the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for a preliminary investigation, followed by a “full FIR inquiry.”
“My LokPal complaint against Ms. Puri-Buch been filed electronically & in physical form. LokPal must within 30 days refer it to CBI/ED for a preliminary investigation and then a full FIR enquiry. Every single entity involved needs to be summoned & every link investigated,” she had said sharing the pictures of the complaint.
The Lokpal also questioned the public display of the complaint along with the public servant complaint against “despite the mandate of Rule 4 of the Lokpal (Complaint) Rules, 2020-guaranteeing protection of identity not only to the complainant but also to the public servant complained against till the conclusion of the inquiry or investigation.”
The order by Lokpal said that the first complainant prepared their complaint on July 13, 2024, as indicated by the date noted at the end of the registered communication. However, it appears that the complainant may have revised it based on a later report by Hindenburg Research, published on August 30, 2024, which they downloaded from the internet on August 13.
“From the chronology noted above, we have reason to believe that the complainant, without verifying the contents of the stated report and collating credible material, has rushed in his complaint on the same day online,” the order said.
Both the complainants have been asked to “articulate the allegations against concerned person which may constitute an ‘offence of corruption’ within the meaning of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, ‘provision wise'” in an affidavit.
The case has been listed for October 17.