Big action on bribery allegations in Madras High Court: Order for vigilance inquiry into the case of taking Rs 50 lakh
Chennai.
Madras High Court has ordered a vigilance inquiry into serious allegations against a senior advocate of taking Rs 50 lakh in the name of bribing a judge. Considering the sensitivity of the matter, Justice Nirmal Kumar recused himself from the hearing and directed to send the matter before the Chief Justice.
The matter came to light on the basis of a report filed by All India Lawyers Association for Justice (AILAJ). The organization alleged that a senior advocate took Rs 50 lakh from his client by saying that by giving this amount to the judge, a favorable order would be passed. It is alleged that despite taking the money, no order was passed.
Court’s stance
Justice Nirmal Kumar, in his order, said the allegations made are of “specific and serious nature” which cannot be ignored. The Court held that to maintain fairness and transparency it was necessary to hand over the case to the Vigilance Branch of the High Court.
On this basis he:
Which petition is the matter related to?
This controversy It is related to the criminal review petition filed by Ganesh Aggarwal. Aggarwal said:
After the special court for Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) cases rejected his discharge petition,
And the charge sheet filed against him,
Had demanded its cancellation.
This matter is related to Metal and Minerals Trading Corporation of India (MMTC).
Allegation of alleged scam of Rs 113 crore
N. Ganesh Aggarwal is accused of: During the year 2008-09:
Speculated in foreign currency (rupee and dollar) fluctuations,
Adequate security was not taken for purchases made under the Buyers Credit Scheme,
and caused a loss of approximately Rs 113.38 crore to MMTC through criminal conspiracy.
In this case, he was accused of allegedly demanding bribe in the name of providing relief.
The report came from the ministry
Ahead of the proposed hearing on February 5, the High Court Registry had received a letter from the Ministry of Law and Justice, in which AILAJ’s report was attached. It was through this letter that this matter formally came to the notice of the court.
The report stated that:
Senior advocate took money in the name of bribe,
But neither order was given,
Nor was the amount returned.
Advocate’s side
When the court sought clarification from the senior advocate concerned, he said:
Called all the allegations completely baseless.
Assured cooperation in any kind of investigation.
At the same time, the Special Public Prosecutor argued that discussing such allegations in an open forum could affect the dignity of the judiciary.
Relevant Case Law
The stand of the court in this matter is considered to be in line with the principles established earlier by the Supreme Court.
K. Veeraswami vs. Union of India (1991)
In this decision, the Supreme Court had said that the investigation into allegations of corruption against judges should be done with special care and under institutional procedure.C. Ravichandran Iyer vs Justice A.M. Bhattacharya (1995)
In this case the court recognized the “in-house process” under which the judiciary can conduct preliminary investigation into the allegations at its own level.
Under these principles, the Madras High Court has decided to hand over the case to the Vigilance Branch.
Impact on judicial transparency
Legal experts believe that this order is an important step towards maintaining the impartiality of the judiciary. Independent investigation into allegations of corruption at any level strengthens public confidence.
further process
Now in this case:
The vigilance branch of the High Court will conduct preliminary investigation.
Will submit its report to the Chief Justice,
Disciplinary or legal action will be decided based on the report.
The hearing on the original petition is likely to be adjourned until the investigation is completed.
This case is not only related to a criminal episode but also concerns the credibility of the judicial system. In such a situation, the entire country will keep an eye on the findings of this investigation in the coming days.
Source Livelaw
Comments are closed.