Archive · 8 Oct 2026
Delhi High Court Orders Complaint Against Six CBI Officers
The case is about a statement the CBI made to a court in 2016.
The statement said the agency was communicating with a ministry about possible further legal action.
The High Court said the records showed that the CBI was still discussing the matter internally at that time.
It found there was enough reason to ask a lower court to examine whether six officers committed offences.
The High Court overturned an earlier decision that had declined to start that process.
It ordered a written complaint to be sent to a magistrate within four weeks.
The officers have not been found guilty by this order.
The competent court must consider the case independently.
The Delhi High Court directed a criminal complaint against six CBI officers over a 2016 court reply.
The court found that the reply said ministry correspondence was underway when only an internal CBI proposal was being considered.
It cited successive drafts, file notings and the officers’ roles in preparing, reviewing or approving the reply.
The High Court set aside a Special Judge’s October 25, 2025, decision declining to initiate proceedings and ordered a complaint within four weeks.
The court stressed that ordering a complaint does not establish guilt and that the competent court must assess the matter independently.
- Who
- The Delhi High Court; six CBI officers; and Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, who filed the appeal.
- What
- The High Court ordered a criminal complaint against the officers over an allegedly false 2016 reply to a trial court.
- When
- The disputed reply was filed on August 2, 2016; the High Court issued its order after setting aside an October 25, 2025 decision.
- Where
- Delhi, India.
- Why
- The court found that the reply described ministry correspondence as underway although the relevant step was still an internal CBI proposal.
High Court’s findings
CBI position described in the article
Whether ministry correspondence was underway
High Court’s findings
The court found that no correspondence with the DoPT was underway on August 2, 2016; only an internal CBI proposal was being considered.
CBI position described in the article
The CBI maintained that its earlier assertion was correct because the proposal was being processed internally.
Effect of the later reply
High Court’s findings
The court said the August 9 reply did not cure the earlier assertion and noted that it stated the proposal was forwarded to the DoPT on August 8.
CBI position described in the article
The CBI argued that the later additional reply completely cured the earlier statement.
- Officers named
- Sushil Dewan, Vineet Vinayak, Amit Kumar, Raman Tyagi, Prem Kumar Gautam and Md Azad
- Disputed reply
- Dated August 2, 2016
- Later reply
- Filed August 9, 2016; it recorded that the proposal was forwarded to the DoPT on August 8
- Order set aside
- Special Judge’s order dated October 25, 2025
- Complaint deadline
- Within four weeks, to be transmitted to the jurisdictional Magistrate
- Legal provisions cited
- IPC Sections 191 read with 193 and 209; Section 340 of the CrPC
- Guilt determination
- The complaint order does not establish the officers’ guilt