The Lokpal of India has dismissed a complaint alleging disproportionate assets against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Member of Parliament Nishikant Dubey, delivering a strong rebuke to the complainant and terming the allegations “frivolous, vexatious, and devoid of merit.” In a detailed 134-page order dated January 13, 2026, the anti-corruption ombudsman concluded that the complaint filed by activist Amitabh Thakur failed to establish any case against the Jharkhand MP and appeared to be driven by extraneous considerations.

The Lokpal bench, headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, found that the complaint largely focused on the assets of Dubey’s wife rather than those of the MP himself, who alone falls within the Lokpal’s jurisdiction as a public servant. The order observed that the attempt to indirectly target the MP through his spouse’s financial disclosures was legally untenable and unsupported by credible evidence.

Allegations Based on Election Affidavits

Amitabh Thakur’s complaint relied primarily on asset declarations made by Nishikant Dubey in his election affidavits filed between 2009 and 2024. Thakur alleged that there was a disproportionate and unexplained increase in the assets of Dubey’s wife over this period, suggesting that the growth was inconsistent with known sources of income.

However, after examining the affidavits and related material, the Lokpal concluded that there was no substantial increase in Dubey’s own assets that could raise suspicion of disproportionate wealth. The bench noted that the changes in the MP’s declared assets over the years were marginal and adequately explained within the framework of permissible income and disclosures.

Crucially, the Lokpal held that even if questions were raised about the assets of Dubey’s wife, the complaint failed to demonstrate any direct nexus between those assets and the MP’s official position or alleged abuse of public office. As a result, the basic threshold for initiating an inquiry under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act was not met.

Sharp Criticism of the Complainant

The Lokpal order was particularly critical of the manner in which the complaint was filed and pursued. The bench observed that Thakur had relied on unverified information drawn from the public domain without undertaking any serious effort to corroborate his claims. It further noted that the complaint appeared to be motivated by a political or personal vendetta rather than a genuine concern for probity in public life.

The order also took exception to Thakur’s conduct during the proceedings, including his decision to publicise details of the complaint on social media platforms. The Lokpal noted that such actions violated confidentiality norms prescribed under the law and undermined the integrity of the institution.

“The recalcitrant approach of the complainant, coupled with repeated allegations of bias against the institution, reflects a disregard for the statutory process and the dignity of the office of Lokpal,” the bench remarked, disapproving of what it described as an attempt to scandalise the proceedings.

Liberty Granted to MP to Take Legal Action

While the Lokpal discharged a show-cause notice issued to Thakur for violating procedural rules, it made an important observation in favour of the BJP MP. The bench granted Nishikant Dubey the liberty to pursue appropriate legal remedies against Thakur for breach of privacy and reputational harm.

The order underlined that public servants are entitled to protection of their reputation and personal dignity, particularly when allegations are found to be baseless. It emphasised that the Lokpal mechanism should not be misused as a tool to harass individuals or conduct “fishing and roving inquiries” without credible material.

Nishikant Dubey Welcomes Decision

Reacting to the Lokpal’s order, Nishikant Dubey welcomed the decision and described the allegations against him and his family as false and malicious. In a statement, the BJP MP said the ruling vindicated his stand and reaffirmed his faith in constitutional institutions.

“I cannot be silenced. I am an ordinary worker of the BJP. I am fortunate that during the time of the Honorable Prime Minister Modi Ji, the BJP made me a Member of Parliament,” Dubey said. He added that it was his duty to expose what he described as the “dark deeds of the Congress” before the public.

Dubey further said that the Lokpal had recognised the harm caused to his family’s reputation by the allegations and had given him the option to seek legal redress. Ending his statement on a note of triumph, he said, “Satyameva Jayate.”

Political Context and Congress Attack

The Lokpal’s decision comes amid a broader political exchange between the BJP and the Congress. Earlier, Congress leader Supriya Shrinate had publicly attacked Nishikant Dubey, alleging a disproportionate rise in his wife’s assets. Shrinate had cited the existence of the Lokpal complaint to argue that while Dubey’s declared income had not seen a significant rise, his family’s assets had grown substantially.

With the Lokpal now dismissing the complaint in its entirety, the BJP is expected to use the ruling to counter opposition allegations and accuse the Congress of spreading misinformation. The order may also have implications for political discourse around asset disclosures, particularly the limits of accountability mechanisms when complaints are not backed by concrete evidence.

Broader Implications

The ruling reinforces the Lokpal’s position that while scrutiny of public servants is essential in a democracy, the anti-corruption framework cannot be weaponised for political battles or personal grudges. By calling out frivolous complaints and protecting reputational rights, the Lokpal has sent a message about the need for responsibility and rigour in invoking its jurisdiction.

At the same time, the order leaves open the possibility of further legal action, as Nishikant Dubey considers whether to pursue cases related to defamation or harassment. As political tempers remain high, the decision is likely to resonate beyond this individual case, shaping how future complaints against public officials are framed and assessed.