Corruption and JUDGES

 

DECCAN  INQUIRER

BI-WEEKLY E NEWS  PAPER  

EDITOR:  NAGARAJA.M.R ....VOL.21  .. ISSUE...42....…25/05/2025

‘Cash for bail’: Judge transferred amid Delhi Anti-Corruption Branch probe, court staffer booked

       A Delhi court staffer has been booked under the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly soliciting bribes worth crores of rupees on behalf of a sessions judge in exchange for bail to at least six individuals accused in a GST evasion case. The sessions judge until recently presided over a special CBI court at Rouse Avenue.

While the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) of the Delhi government had also sought sanction to prosecute the judge, its request, passed on by the government to the Delhi High Court, was denied on grounds of insufficient evidence. However, the court said the ACB could approach the court again if any material is collected that indicates the judge’s involvement. 

On 20 May, the special judge was transferred from Rouse Avenue to another court.

An FIR was registered on 16 May against the court’s ahlmad (record keeper), identified as Mukesh, along with a chartered accountant, Vishal, who had allegedly paid a bribe of Rs 40 lakh to secure bail.

The ACB received its first complaint against the court staffer in January from an individual named Prasoon Vashishtha, an advocate and brother-in-law of Babita Sharma, who was arrested last August in a GST case and had applied for bail in the sessions judge’s court.

According to the FIR—seen by ThePrint—Vashishtha alleged that in October last year, a few court officials approached them with an offer to secure bail for Sharma and the other accused in exchange for a substantial sum.

“They called me into the room adjacent to court no. 608 and demanded Rs 85 lakh for Ms Sharma and Rs 1 crore each for other accused—Raj Singh Saini, Mukesh Saini, and Narendra Saini,” he said in his complaint, now part of the FIR.

He further alleged that on his refusal to engage, Sharma’s bail application was “unjustly prolonged” and eventually “dismissed”.

It was further alleged that on two occasions, Raj Singh Saini approached their family and claimed he had obtained bail by paying a substantial bribe and urged them to do the same.

“The complainant alleged that they were informed that the judge would do everything adverse with his powers to persecute Babita Sharma,” a source familiar with the matter said.

They also alleged that the judge had issued a warning to keep Babita Sharma standing for hours each day of the hearing and that he would ensure she’d suffer “irreparable loss” if the judge’s demands were not met, the source added.

“The complainant alleged his family was told that if Babita pays Rs 1 crore now and withdraws her application from the high court then she would be granted bail and eventually discharged in the next six months,” this source further said.

Another complaint and an inquiry

According to sources in the Delhi government, the complainant, Vashishtha, was unable to provide sufficient evidence to support the complaint.

Subsequently, another complaint was submitted to the ACB by Vikesh Kumar Bansal—another accused in the same GST evasion case—who submitted an audio recording allegedly capturing the staff member demanding a bribe.

Following this, the ACB launched a formal inquiry.

“Bansal’s complaint stated that he was contacted by Ahlmad Mukesh from Court Room No. 608 and asked to visit the court. At the court, Mukesh allegedly demanded Rs 15–20 lakh per accused for the grant of regular bail, even though Bansal was already on interim bail granted by the high court,” another source in the know said.

According to sources, Bansal also received a phone call from a co-accused, Vishal, who confirmed he had secured bail from the same court by paying Rs 40 lakh. 

Vishal further claimed that the other accused—identified as the Saini brothers—paid Rs 1 crore, while transporters paid Rs 15 lakh each, and two individuals, including one Manoj, paid Rs 10 lakh each to obtain bail.

Police said Bansal provided audio recordings of these conversations to the ACB and three transcripts were prepared in the presence of a panch witness on 24 January.

A report was subsequently submitted to the principal secretary of the Department of Law, Justice and Legislative Affairs, on 29 January.

Request for sanction to prosecute judge

When a request was made for sanction to prosecute the judge, the Delhi High Court, on 13 February, responded that there was currently insufficient material indicating the judge’s involvement. However, the court permitted the investigating agency to proceed with the investigation into the complaints.

If, during the course of the investigation, any material is collected that indicates the involvement of the said judicial officer in the alleged incident and warrants action against him, the investigating agency is at liberty to make a fresh request to this Court seeking appropriate permission,” the high court stated in response to the sanction request.

Following this, the ACB called the ahlmad for a statement. “We began an inquiry, but the ahlmad tried to evade it. In fact, he also attempted to influence witnesses, including those who had submitted recorded evidence against him. That’s why a case was registered and the chartered accountant was arrested,” a source said.

The source added that the combined contents of the two complaints, supported by corroborative audio evidence and contextual details surrounding the bail hearings, indicate “serious misconduct involving demands for and receipt of bribes by the court staff”.

Three days in Indian courts: A tale of 'corruption'

In a nation where judges are revered as demigods and courtrooms as temples of justice, the events of three calamitous days in March have laid bare the clay feet of these presumed divinities.

From March 14 to 18, the Indian judiciary, that self-proclaimed final bastion of democratic values, offered the public a tour through its chambers of disgrace, revealing patterns of corruption, moral turpitude and a troubling disconnect from the society it purports to serve.

The judge and the burning cache

On the night of March 14, as flames engulfed an outhouse at the official residence of Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, they illuminated more than just the structure itself. Firefighters stumbling upon wads of currency notes amid the inferno unwittingly sparked a different kind of fire; one that threatens to consume the judiciary’s reputation.

The Supreme Court, in an unprecedented move towards transparency or perhaps damage-control, released videos and photographs showing what plainly appear to be bundles of cash in plastic bags retrieved from the flames. “Mahatma Gandhi mein aag lag gayi”, someone is heard remarking in the video, a mordant observation about the Gandhi-emblazoned notes that were burning, an apt metaphor for the values they represent going up in smoke within judicial quarters.

Justice Varma, in Bhopal when the blaze erupted, has denied any connection with the cash. His defence rests on the claim that the outhouse where the fire occurred was “completely disassociated” from his living quarters, “unlocked and accessible” to all and sundry. One is left to wonder if it is standard procedure for high court judges to maintain unsecured outhouses where anonymous benefactors might deposit large sums of cash without their knowledge.

The chief justice of India (CJI) has constituted a three-member committee to investigate the matter, the judiciary’s time-honoured ritual for addressing impropriety within its ranks. Yet history suggests that these committees have often failed to deliver the desired results.

The case of Justice S.N. Shukla of the Allahabad High Court vividly illustrates this failure.

In 2017, Justice Shukla was implicated in a medical college corruption scandal. Despite an in-house inquiry finding the allegations credible and the then CJI urging him to resign, Justice Shukla simply refused. The judiciary’s response? They merely withdrew his judicial work while he continued to hold his position and draw his full salary until retirement in July 2020. To some, it would seem like nearly three years of paid vacation for alleged corruption.

Though the CJI eventually authorised a criminal complaint against Justice Shukla in July 2019 and the CBI formally charged him in December 2021, the case continues to languish in court with no resolution in sight.

The judge and the definition of dignity

While Justice Varma’s cash burned in Delhi, Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra of the Allahabad High Court was busy redefining the boundaries of sexual assault. On March 17, in a ruling that has drawn deserved opprobrium, he determined that grabbing a minor girl’s breasts and breaking her pyjama strings while dragging her under a culvert were not sufficient grounds for charges of rape or attempted rape.

This judicial pearl of wisdom came in a case involving an 11-year-old girl, who was assaulted by two men in Uttar Pradesh’s Kasganj district. The assailants fled only when passersby intervened, a fact that Justice Mishra apparently found irrelevant to their intentions. Instead, he ordered the POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act) court to modify the charges to the lesser offence of “assaulting or abusing with an intent to disrobe”.

The judgment provoked immediate and widespread condemnation. Union minister for women and child development Annapurna Devi declared she “completely disagreed” with the ruling, adding that “such a ruling has no place in a civilised society”. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal was more direct: “God save this country with such judges adorning the Bench.”

Yet Justice Mishra’s ruling is hardly an anomaly but part of a troubling pattern. In 2017, the Punjab and Haryana High Court suspended the sentence of three students convicted of gang-rape, saying that the accused were young and the narrative did not throw up gut-wrenching violence that normally preceded or accompanied such incidents.

In another infamous case, a Karnataka High Court judge, while granting anticipatory bail to a rape accused in 2020, remarked that it was “unbecoming of an Indian woman” to fall asleep after being “ravished”. In 2021, the Bombay High Court ruled that groping a child without “skin-to-skin contact” did not constitute sexual assault under the POCSO Act, a judgment the Supreme Court overturned.

After refusing a day earlier to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging Justice Mishra’s order, the Supreme Court, on March 25, took suo motu cognisance of the matter. The PIL had urged the apex court to issue guidelines preventing judges from making such controversial remarks in future cases. The court’s initial refusal to even hear the matter was seen as suggestive of reluctance to confront the misogyny festering its ranks.

The judge and the privileged fraudster

The third act in this judicial tragicomedy played out on March 18 when the Supreme Court extended interim protection from arrest to former trainee IAS officer Puja Khedkar. Accused of forging documents to avail reservations meant for Other Backward Classes and Persons with Benchmark Disabilities, Khedkar represents a peculiar case of privilege masquerading as disadvantage.

The Delhi High Court had previously dismissed her anticipatory bail plea, describing her actions as a “classic example of fraud, not only with a constitutional body but also with society and the nation as a whole”. In its affidavit, the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) opposed Khedkar’s anticipatory bail plea, calling the scale of the fraud “unprecedented”.

The UPSC accused Khedkar of illegally securing extra attempts by falsifying her identity in clear violation of the Examination Rules. It also underlined the necessity of custodial interrogation to fully expose the extent of the fraud and collect crucial evidence to build the case.

When the additional solicitor general argued for custodial interrogation to uncover what appears to be a larger scam involving fraudulent certificates, the court’s response was telling: “She’s not the kingpin issuing certificates. Her case is an isolated case.” The court instead questioned the Delhi police why she had not been called for investigation despite her professed willingness to cooperate.

The road to reform

These three episodes, compressed into just three days, offer a disturbing portrait of a judiciary in crisis, one that harbours corruption, perpetuates misogyny, and extends extraordinary leniency to the privileged. They expose the fundamental weaknesses in the mechanisms designed to hold judges accountable.

The in-house procedure established in 1999 has proved woefully inadequate, operating behind a veil of secrecy that shields judges from public scrutiny. The constitutional impeachment process, requiring a two-thirds majority in both houses of Parliament, sets the bar so high that no judge has ever been successfully impeached despite numerous scandals.

Criminal prosecutions of judges remain exceedingly rare and largely inconclusive. The requirement for the CJI’s prior sanction before registering a criminal case against a high court or Supreme Court judge, while theoretically designed to prevent frivolous complaints, has effectively created a judicial immunity that borders on impunity.

Even basic transparency measures are resisted. As of March 2025, out of more than 1,100 judges in the high courts and Supreme Court, only 98 have publicly disclosed their assets. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has stayed a Lokpal order asserting jurisdiction over sitting high court judges, jealously guarding its self-regulatory prerogatives despite mounting evidence of their inefficacy.

The reform agenda is clear and urgent. First, the judiciary must embrace transparency, making the declaration of assets mandatory for all judges and conducting in-house inquiries with greater openness. Second, the constitutional impeachment process must be reformed to make it workable rather than merely theoretical. Third, an independent judicial complaints commission, comprising both judicial and non-judicial members, should be established to investigate allegations of misconduct.

Moreover, the judiciary must undergo a cultural transformation, abandoning antiquated notions of gender and privilege that continue to infect its jurisprudence. Sensitivity training for judges, particularly on issues related to sexual violence and marginalised communities, is not a nicety but a necessity.

As the three-member committee begins its inquiry into Justice Varma’s case, the nation waits to see whether this will be another exercise in institutional self-protection or a genuine attempt at accountability. The outcome will signal whether the judiciary is capable of self-correction or whether more drastic legislative intervention is required.

Corruption charges slapped on Justice Dinakaran

A RS panel slapped 16 charges on the tainted ex-CJ of Karnataka who faces impeachment proceedings in Parliament.

NEW DELHI: Sixteen charges of corruption and irregularities have been slapped by a Rajya Sabha constituted panel against Chief Justice of the Sikkim High Court Justice P D Dinkaran, who is facing impeachment proceedings in Parliament.

The committee comprising Supreme Court Justice Aftab Alam, Karnataka High Court Justice K S Khehar and eminent jurist PP Roy issued the chargesheet to Dinakaran on March 16 and has sought his response by April 9.

The charges against him included possession of wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income, illegal encroachment on public property and land belonging to Dalits and other weaker sections, five Tamil Nadu Housing Board plots in favour of wife and two daughters, benami transactions, acquiring and possessing agricultural holdings beyond the ceiling fixed by the TN Land Reforms Act 1961, destruction of evidence, undervaluation of sale agreements, evasion of stamp duty and illegal constructions.

This apart, Justice Dinakaran has been accused of resorting to irregular and dishonest administrative actions by fixing rosters of judges to facilitate dishonest judicial decisions while he was the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court. He is also accused of adopting illegal transfers of judges and appointments of staff, sources said.

Dinakaran has been granted the liberty to engage a lawyer of his choice to defend himself.

Justice Dinakaran was recommended for appointment as a Supreme Court judge in August 2009 but the move was stalled following the allegations against him.

The motion for Dinakaran's removal was admitted in the Rajya Sabha on December 17, 2009 following which Rajya Sabha Chairman Hamid Ansari constituted the panel to probe the allegations.

Initially, another Supreme Court Judge V S Sirpurkar was appointed to head the panel but he was forced to recuse after the Madras Bar Association and various lawyers forum sought his recusal on the ground that he had worked with Justice Dinakaran in the Madras High Court.

While slapping charges against Dinakaran, the panel took into consideration various material furnished by the Income Tax department and Tamil Nadu government to justify the allegations against him.

Dinakaran attends court, hears 27 cases in 24. mins

Bangalore:

In one of the fastest ever proceedings recorded in the annals of Karnataka's judiciary, Justice Dinakaran heard and adjourned 27 matters in less than 30 minutes.

These included a major public interest litigation over last week's doctors strike, wherein 4000 state government doctors resigned creating a public health crisis. The High Court had taken up the issue suo motu.

Justice Dinakaran averted a judicial crisis by showing up at the High Court, smiling and with folded hands, as it reopened after the Dussehra vacation on Monday. The high court had been abuzz with everyone wondering if the Chief Justice would preside over the proceedings, after Bangalore Advocates Association's resolution on September 17 requested that he refrain from attending court.

With this development, the request of the Advocate General of Karnataka Ashok Harnahalli has been heeded to. The state government's top legal brain had told NDTV that Dinakaran should attend work, when courts reopen.

What remains to be seen is the reaction of the Bangalore Advocates Association. The Karnataka Federation of Bar Associations has already indicated that it might take a decision on boycotting the bench presided over by Justice P D Dinakaran till his name was cleared of the allegations.

Justice Dinakaran is accused by the Forum of Judicial Accountability of buying nearly 550 acres in two districts of Tamil Nadu, violating the land ceiling Act - a charge Dinakaran has denied. Now, the forum has written another letter to the CJI, alleging more violations by Justice Dinakaran's family.

Was  ex-CJI  Balakrishnan a fixer ?

Ex-Judge says he was approached

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.firstpost.com/politics/was-ex-cji-balakrishnan-a-fixer-ex-judge-says-he-was-approached-25820.html/amp 

Corruption  and  Judges

1. Justice ES Venkataramiah

Justice Venkataramiah was the 19th Chief Justice of India, and held office from June 19, 1989 to December 17, 1989.

He told journalist Kuldip Nayar on the eve of his retirement:

“The judiciary in India has deteriorated in its standards because such judges are appointed as are willing to be ‘influenced by lavish parties and whisky bottles’.”

He reminded the sitting judges of former Union Minister of Law and Justice P Shiv Shankar’s pungent statement:

“Anti-social elements, that is FERA violators, bride burners and a whole horde of reactionaries, found their haven in the Supreme Court.”

Contempt proceedings were sought to be initiated in 1990 against Justice Venkataramiah before the Bombay High Court. The complainant, one Vishwanath, son of Gopal Palshikar, claimed that the judge had scandalised the Court by this statement, which was attributed to him in the interview:

“In every high court, there were at least four to five judges who were practically out every evening, wining and dining either at a lawyer’s house or a foreign embassy and that the estimate of the number of such judges was around 90 and that practically in all the 22 high courts in the country, close relations of the judges were thriving.”

Justice Venkataramiah favoured transferring such judges to other high courts.

He reiterated that close relatives of judges should be debarred from practising in the same high courts. He expressed himself strongly against sons, sons-in-law and brothers of judges appearing in the courts where the latter are on the bench. He said that most judges’ relatives are practising in the High Courts of Allahabad, Chandigarh, Delhi and Patna.

In an interview, former CJI Venkataramiah said that in practically all (then) 22 high courts in the country, close relatives of judges were thriving. There were allegations that certain judgments have been influenced through them even though they have not been directly engaged as lawyers in such cases, he said.

“It is hard to disregard the reports that every brother, son or son-in-law of a judge, whatever his merit or lack of it as a lawyer, can be sure of earning an income of more than Rs 10,000 a month,” he said in that interview.

Nayar said in the preface to that interview:

“Sad and sombre, Chief Justice Venkataramiah said that he had vainly tried to bring to the notice of Judges the Law Commission Report which has cited examples to prove how Judges compromise their position and prefer to be seen in the precincts of government houses and elsewhere.”

The government pleader, Badar, citing this portion of the interview, told the Court that the entire judgment had to be judged and appreciated in light of the fact that the former CJI’s motive was to improve the judiciary. According to Badar, Nayar did not fail to notice that the former CJI felt hurt while expressing his feelings.

A similar petition was filed in the Supreme Court by then Chairman of the Jammu and Kashmir Legal Aid Committee, Bhim Singh. He sought a direction from the Supreme Court to disclose the names of 90 judges of the different high courts as mentioned by the former CJI. The petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on February 1, 1990.

The petitioner before the Bombay High Court contended that had the former CJI disclosed the names of 90 judges, it would have been a different matter. But, that not having been done, every judge of the High Court became a suspect.

The Bench, however, disagreed, and reminded him of a Chinese proverb “As long as you are up-right, do not care if your shadow is crooked.” It reasoned that the former CJI’s statement referred only to such judges who were indulging in ‘wining and dining’ at lawyers’ houses or foreign embassies or whose sons, sons-in-law, and brothers were minting money by abusing their position.

Without getting the Advocate General’s consent, the petitioner sought suo motu action by the Court in the matter, in view of the grave nature of the contempt. Despite the Court asking the petitioner to seek the AG’s consent, he refused to do so, and requested the Court to take suo motu action on the basis of the facts he brought to its notice.

The interview was published in several newspapers including Lokmat and Dainik Rashtradoot in Nagpur. Both Justice Venkataramaiah and Nayar were made respondents.

On March 2, 1990, Justices MM Qazi and BU Wahane of the Nagpur Bench of the High Court dismissed the petition.

Justice Venkataramaiah died on September 24, 1997 at the age of 72.

2. Justice SP Bharucha

In a speech in 2001, Justice Bharucha, the then CJI, lamented that 20% of the judges in India were corrupt. He made this speech during the Law Day function on November 26, 2001 on the lawns of the Supreme Court. In his speech, he refers to what he said in public before assuming office as the CJI.

A petition seeking to initiate contempt proceedings against the former CJI for making this speech was dismissed by the Rajasthan High Court later.

3. Justice Michael Saldanha

Justice Saldanha of the Karnataka High Court has been quoted as saying that 33% of the judiciary is corrupt.

4. Justice Markandey Katju

During his term as Chairman of the Press Council of India, Justice Katju alleged corruption in the Supreme Court. He said three former Chief Justices of India had compromised in giving an extension to an additional judge of the Madras High Court at the insistence of the then UPA government at the Centre, under pressure from one of its allies, the DMK.

“By rejecting Mr Shanti Bhushan’s petition seeking registration of an FIR against Justice C.K.Prasad for gross corruption, the Indian Supreme Court has once again sought to bury corruption by one of its own members under the carpet, forgetting that however much one may seek to conceal it, the bulge will show.

I accuse the Indian judiciary of repeatedly burying corruption by its own members under the carpet. I accuse it of being hypocritical by speaking against corruption by politicians and bureaucrats, but deliberately protecting its own corrupt brethren.”

5. Justice J Chelameswar

In an interview to the Economic Times, Justice Chelameswar said:

“Corruption does exist. Why was Quddusi arrested? A former judge of a high court in this country was arrested…If this institution is discredited, democracy is not safe. All my effort was to preserve the institution, strengthen it by creating a greater degree of credibility which can only come through transparent functioning. That was my whole effort….Judges will be politically influenced. 

To say that judges are not touched by politics, I think is not an honest statement. And mind you, I am not talking of party politics. The question is how dispassionately can judges handle the current political events….No direct pressure, but there are subtle ways of putting the pressure (in answer to the question whether there is more political pressure now).”

At a press conference held with Justices Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph on January 12, 2018, Chelameswar J said,

“Twenty years later some wise men shouldn’t say judges sold their souls.”

6. Justice MN Venkatachaliah

“There are just 25 judges in the Supreme Court in a country with a population of a billion-plus. And even there, some of them turn out corrupt,” former CJI Venkatachaliah told Anuradha Raman of Outlook in 2011. 

“The most heinous crime is the CJI incurring criticism, or giving room for doubts that his hands are dirty.”

7. Justice VR Krishna Iyer

Justice Iyer was among those who demanded former CJI KG Balakrishnan’s resignation as the Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission following allegations of corruption.

 Two former judges of the Kerala high court, Justice PK Shamsuddin and Justice K Sukumaran, also made serious allegations against Justice Balakrishnan.

Justice Krishna Iyer wrote an open letter to then Congress General Secretary Rahul Gandhi in 2011, saying:

“The judicature, a sacred instrument with great powers to punish corruption, is itself corrupt. Not a single corrupt judge has been caught or punished.”

In 2013, he wrote to then President Pranab Mukherjee, seeking a probe and action against some senior Supreme Court judges who, he said, are “suspect of moral deviance”. He told the President that the scourge of bribery tainting politics had not polluted the judiciary for long, but that was “becoming a matter of the past”.

8. Justice JS Verma

“I cannot say that there has not been a single corrupt judge even in the Supreme Court. You have that in public knowledge,” Justice JS Verma, who was CJI from March 1997 to January 1998, told CNN-IBN. He agreed that the rot ran deep in the judicial system.

Justice Verma also revealed that his successor, CJI MM Punchhi, was sworn in despite his reservations because the then Prime Minister IK Gujral did not order an inquiry into the allegations which he had forwarded to him, requesting a probe. He said,

“When I joined the bar 40 years back, no one talked about corruption even in the district judges. Now when people talk about corruption even in the apex court, I feel like it is a slap on my face.”

Edited, printed , published owned by NAGARAJA.M.R. @  # LIG-2   No  761, HUDCO  FIRST  STAGE , OPP WATER WORKS , LAXMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL ,MYSURU – 570017  KARNATAKA  INDIA     

Cell : 91 8970318202 

WhatsApp  91  8970318202

Home page : https://e-inquirer.blogspot.com/  

Contact  :  naag@gmx.com