“Doctrine of Candour & Locus Standi” Reinforced – Commentary on Gulshan Babbar Advocate v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (2025 DHC 5184)

1. Introduction

The Delhi High Court’s decision dated 2 July 2025 in Gulshan Babbar Advocate v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (hereafter “Babbar”) scrutinises five inter-connected criminal writ petitions filed by a practising advocate against various investigative agencies and private respondents (predominantly the IREO group of real-estate companies and their director Mr Lalit Goyal). The petitions alleged large-scale financial wrongdoing, sought court-monitored investigations by the Enforcement Directorate (“ED”), Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI”), Serious Fraud Investigation Office (“SFIO”) and others, and prayed for attachment/freezing of assets—including ₹600 crore held in an escrow account.

The Court (Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora) ultimately dismissed all petitions, imposed ₹1.25 lakh costs, and—crucially—laid down a clear rule that:

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Lead petition & connected matters: W.P.(Crl.) 614/2024 was treated as the lead case to test maintainability of four other criminal writs (Nos. 862, 1111, 1219, 2595 of 2024).
• Main findings:
  1. The petitioner had no locus standi; he was neither a home-buyer nor otherwise “person aggrieved”.
  2. The petitions were not filed as PILs under 2010 Rules; therefore the public-interest exception could not be invoked.
  3. Extensive suppression & misrepresentation – failure to disclose prior petitions, false claim of being a home-buyer, distortion of previous court orders – constituted abuse of process.
  4. Investigation by ED/SFIO was already ongoing. Courts ordinarily do not monitor investigations unless there is clear abuse; none was shown.
  5. Petitions were dismissed with costs of ₹25,000 each (total ₹1.25 lakh) payable to DHCLSC.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

1. Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar (1976) 1 SCC 671
   Reiterated that a writ petitioner must ordinarily possess a personal/legal right in the subject matter.
2. Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 4 SCC 465
   Clarified that strangers cannot meddle in litigation unless case falls within genuine PIL exception.
3. A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1984) 2 SCC 500
   Petitioner relied on Antulay for proposition that “any person” may set criminal law in motion. Court distinguished it, noting it concerns Magistrate/Police complaint procedure, not writ petitions for court-monitored probe.
4. P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) 9 SCC 24
   Supreme Court emphasised courts should not normally interfere with investigation unless mala fide or abuse of power.
5. Dukhishyam Benupani v. Arun Kumar Bajoria (1998) 1 SCC 52
   Monitoring investigation is uncalled for unless investigation transgresses legal bounds.
6. Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315
   Consolidates principles that police have primacy in investigating cognisable offences; courts should not scuttle proceedings at initial stage.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Locus Standi: Petitioner lacked personal stake; therefore could litigate only as PIL. Because petitions were not styled or verified as PIL under Delhi High Court (PIL) Rules 2010, public-interest mantle was unavailable.
2. Suppression & Abuse: Five petitions contained false “non-filing” declarations; petitioner, an advocate, incorrectly declared himself a home-buyer; previous orders were selectively quoted. Such conduct violates the “doctrine of utmost candour” expected in writ jurisdiction.
3. Existence of Parallel Investigations: ED had already registered ECIR/GNZO/10/2021, filed prosecution complaint (14 Jan 2022) & supplementary (4 Aug 2023), obtained attachment orders worth ₹1,376 crore, and was investigating further. SFIO was also seized. Courts avoid commanding investigating agencies on “how to investigate”.
4. Predicate-offence Principle under PMLA: Alleged diversion of ₹600 crore bank loan could not be investigated by ED in absence of predicate/scheduled offence—banks had not lodged FIR/complaint.
5. Resultant Rule: A petitioner who (i) lacks personal grievance, (ii) files multiple overlapping petitions without disclosure, and (iii) misrepresents facts, will face dismissal and exemplary costs.

3.3 Impact of the Judgment

• Re-affirmation of “Candour Obligation”: The ruling underscores that suppression/misrepresentation in writ pleadings will attract monetary sanctions and dismissal, serving as deterrence to “forum shoppers”.
• Tighter Scrutiny of Advocates as Petitioners: Court emphasised petitioner’s status as an advocate, expecting heightened responsibility. Future practitioner-litigants must exercise extra diligence in affidavits.
• Guidance on PIL Compliance: Clarifies that mere invocation of “public interest” in narrative is ineffectual unless the petition complies procedurally with PIL Rules (disclosure, cause-title, affidavits of no personal benefit, etc.).
• Boundary for Court-Monitored Investigations: The decision aligns Delhi High Court with Supreme Court view that such monitoring is “rarest of rare”. Agencies with ongoing investigation and cognisance by special court generally foreclose writ-based supervision.
• Influence on Financial-Crime Litigation: Persons aggrieved by money-laundering/fraud must utilise statutory remedies—FIR, complaint to Magistrate, participation in PMLA proceedings—before resorting to Article 226.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Locus Standi

Latin for “place to stand”; legal capacity to bring action. Requires a personal/legal right affected by the impugned act—unless filed as valid PIL.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

Mechanism allowing litigation for community interest. The Delhi High Court (PIL) Rules 2010 prescribe format, disclosures, and bona fide requirements.

ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report)

ED’s equivalent of an FIR. Registration of ECIR initiates investigation under PMLA.

PMLA & “Proceeds of Crime”

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002 targets laundering of property derived from a “scheduled offence” (predicate offence). Without such predicate offence, ED cannot invoke PMLA.

Provisional Attachment Order (PAO)

Order under s.5(1) PMLA allowing ED to temporarily attach property suspected to be “proceeds of crime” to prevent dissipation.

Court-Monitored Investigation

Exceptional judicial oversight over investigation, ordered only where agencies fail or proceedings are stymied. Courts emphasise separation of powers and grant such relief sparingly.

Doctrine of Candour

Principle that litigants in writ jurisdiction must make full and frank disclosure; breach may lead to dismissal with costs.

5. Conclusion

The Babbar ruling reiterates two cardinal principles in constitutional litigation: (1) standing and honesty – only an aggrieved person or a properly constituted PIL may invoke Article 226, and the petitioner must disclose all relevant facts; (2) judicial restraint in investigative domain – courts intervene in ongoing investigations only where statutory procedure is subverted or rights are blatantly violated. By imposing costs and documenting the petitioner’s missteps, the High Court sends a strong signal against litigative adventurism and re-affirms the sanctity of truthful pleadings.

Consequently, future litigants—especially advocates—must file meticulously drafted petitions, candidly reveal previous proceedings, and pursue statutory remedies before seeking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Investigative agencies, meanwhile, retain operational autonomy, subject to later judicial review by trial/special courts and appellate forums.