Full Bench comprising CJI Surya Kant in Sadhna Chaudhary v. State of U.P., (2020) 11 SCC 760 Observed That Taking Up Cases Out of Turn May Amount to Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge.
It is a well-settled principle of law that a judge who acts contrary to law and in disregard of binding precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, with the object of extending an undue benefit to an undeserving party and causing harassment to the opposite party, renders himself liable for offences punishable under Sections 166, 167, 218, 219, 220, 409, and 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as also under Sections 7A and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and further, under civil and criminal contempt as defined under Sections 2(b) and 2(c), read with Section 12, of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Supreme Court also called such conduct of a judge as grossest judicial dishonesty by the Judge and such judge should be removed from the post Muzaffar Husain v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 567, R.R. Parekh v. High Court of Gujarat, (2016) 14 SCC 1.
A complaint has been filed before the President of India, with copies to the Chief Justice of India, the Prime Minister, the Union Home Minister, and the Union Law Minister, seeking registration of an FIR and a CBI investigation against Justice Dipankar Datta, alleging irregularities in the listing of certain cases during his tenure as Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. The complaint has been filed by the Indian Lawyers and Human Rights Activists Association (ILHRAA).
The complaint centres on the circumstances surrounding Criminal Contempt Petition No. 3 of 2017 (Bombay Bar Association v. Nilesh Ojha & Ors.), which, according to the complainant, remained pending for nearly five years before being listed for hearing on 06.07.2022 — shortly after Advocate Nilesh Ojha addressed a public programme in New Delhi on 03.07.2022, calling for institutional reforms and action against corrupt judges and politicians, including Uddhav Thackeray. The said petition impleads twelve respondents, comprising various advocates, activists, and media persons, including Adv. Vijay Kurle, Sh. Rashid Khan Pathan, and others.
The complaint alleges that several older contempt matters, including contempt petitions against Uddhav Thackeray, remained unlisted during the same period despite repeated requests for urgent hearing.
There are several other Criminal Contempt proceedings pending against Sanjay Raut, Uddhav Thackeray, and others, including PIL (Civil) (ST) No. 9849 of 2022 and other connected petitions, filed by the Indian Bar Association, Sh. Rashid Khan Pathan, and Sh. Mursalin Sheikh, and represented by Advocates Sh. Nilesh Ojha, Sh. Vijay Kurle, Sh. Ishwarlal Agarwal, Sh. Abhishek Mishra, and others. These petitions allege contempt of a grave character, it being contended therein that the respondents made defamatory, scandalous, and contemptuous statements to the effect that judges of the Bombay High Court are corrupt and beholden to the ruling party; that a “bail scam” operates within the courts of Maharashtra, including the Bombay High Court, whereby bail is selectively granted to persons aligned with particular political interests; that courts have come to function in a manner accessible only upon payment; and that the scales held by Lady Justicia have themselves been compromised.
That notwithstanding the gravity of these allegations, the said petitions remained unlisted for a considerable period; and when mentioned for urgent listing, Justice Dipankar Datta is reported to have observed that the shoulders of the Court are broad enough to bear such remarks, and that no urgency existed for early hearing.
Relevant news was published by main stream media:-
Indian Express, dated 27.04.2022 —
‘Our shoulders broad enough for such remarks’: HC while hearing plea seeking contempt action against Raut, Walse-Patil
Advocate Ishwarlal S Agarwal and Abhishek Mishra, appearing for the petitioner, claimed that the political leaders have levelled several false, scandalous, and contemptuous allegations against the high court judges.
https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/bombay-high-court-plea-contempt-action-sanjay-raut-walse-patil-7889568/
The complaint refers to media reports from the time, including a report published by Indian Express on 27.04.2022, which quoted Justice Datta as observing, that “the shoulders of the Court are broad enough” and that no urgency existed. It also cites a Deccan Herald report dated 14.05.2021 on a meeting between Justice Datta and the then Maharashtra Chief Minister, reported at the time to be a courtesy call.
That this stands in stark contrast to the manner in which contempt proceedings initiated against Advocate Nilesh Ojha, Chairman of the Indian Bar Association, Sh. Rashid Khan Pathan, Adv. Vijay Kurle, and other similarly placed petitioners and advocates — who had themselves pursued cases against Uddhav Thackeray and Sanjay Raut — came to be listed and heard on an expedited basis, as set out in the preceding paragraphs, notwithstanding that such proceedings had also remained pending for a considerable length of time. This marked disparity in the treatment of comparable matters, whereby proceedings against those pursuing action against certain political figures were expedited while proceedings concerning more gravest and aggravated allegations made by such political figures against the judiciary itself were left unlisted, discloses a pattern violative of art 14 of the Constitution of India that warrants independent and impartial examination.
In seeking action, the complaint draws on the reasoning of a Supreme Court bench that included the present Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant, in Sadhna Chaudhary v. State of U.P., (2020) 11 SCC 760. The Court had observed that a judge will be guilty of conduct unbecoming of judicial office for misconduct of taking a case out of turn or causing undue delay — regardless of whether the eventual order passed is otherwise legally sound, since what matters is whether the judge was influenced by illegal gratification or extraneous considerations while conducting the process.
The complaint also cites R.R. Parekh v. High Court of Gujarat, (2016) 14 SCC 1, in which the Supreme Court upheld the compulsory retirement of a judicial officer, holding that a breach of governing legal or procedural principles to benefit a party is itself indicative of an oblique motive, provable on a preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Supreme Court has settled the law that when a public servant acts with undue haste, mala fides are liable to be presumed, warranting investigation by an independent agency such as the CBI. In Noida Entrepreneurs Assn. v. NOIDA, (2011) 6 SCC 508, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that proceeding in haste amounts to arbitrariness, and reiterated the settled position that “when a thing is done in a post-haste manner, mala fides would be presumed.” The Court further held that undue haste, in the absence of any demonstrated urgency, permits an adverse inference to be drawn against the authority concerned, and that State action lacking bona fides is vitiated as a colourable exercise of power, warranting a preliminary inquiry by the CBI with further criminal prosecution if the allegations are found to have substance.
That on a careful consideration of the aforesaid facts, it can reasonably be inferred that Justice Dipankar Datta did not act judicially, but was instead influenced by extraneous considerations.
If the aforesaid facts are inquired into in depth, there exists every possibility that Justice Dipankar Datta may be found involved in the commission of an offence under Section 7(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Such inquiry may further reveal the involvement of other persons who approached him and influenced him into adopting a procedure alien to the established practice and procedure of the Court, which may attract Sections 7A and 8 of the said Act.
In Raman Lal v. State, 2001 Cri LJ 800, it was held that an inference of conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC must ordinarily be drawn from circumstantial evidence, since direct evidence of conspiracy is seldom available; that such an offence is proved largely through inferences drawn from acts or illegal omissions committed by the conspirators in furtherance of a common design; that once a conspiracy is established, the act of one conspirator becomes the act of all; and that a co-conspirator who joins subsequently and commits overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy is equally liable. In the facts of that case — where the accused included an Additional High Court Judge, a Superintendent of Police, and others alleged to have conspired to falsely implicate a shopkeeper — the Court held that (a) no sanction under Section 197 CrPC was required for prosecution, since there was no nexus between the alleged offence and the discharge of official duty; (b) prior consultation with the Chief Justice was not a mandatory precondition to registration of an FIR against a High Court Judge, the safeguard laid down in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655 being confined to requiring sanction specifically in cases of corruption, and not a general bar on investigation; and (c) on the facts, no relief was warranted in favour of the petitioner-Judge, whose earlier representations and challenges before the High Court and Supreme Court had already been rejected.
In Nirbhay Singh Suliya v. State of M.P., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 8, it was held that where a complaint of misconduct against a judicial officer is found, prima facie, to be true, prompt disciplinary action must follow without leniency once the charges are established, and that in appropriate cases the High Court ought not to hesitate in directing criminal prosecution against the delinquent officer, this being the only effective means of weeding out corrupt elements from the judiciary. In his concurring observations, Pardiwala, J. emphasised that corruption within the judiciary, at any level, is intolerable, as it strikes at the root of the administration of justice and erodes public confidence in the rule of law.
The act of a judicial officer in acting contrary to settled law and in wilful and deliberate disregard of binding precedent, is not a mere error of judgment but discloses a conscious departure from the known and established course of judicial conduct. Such conduct, when coupled with the misuse of public money, time, and the machinery of the Court for unauthorised purposes, and carried out with the ulterior motive of shielding an accused person while simultaneously causing harassment to the opposite party, is indicative of a corrupt and dishonest exercise of judicial office rather than a bona fide exercise of judicial discretion. Such conduct, on the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, constitutes an offence under Section 409 IPC (criminal breach of trust by a public servant), Section 166 IPC (public servant disobeying law with intent to cause injury to any person), Sections 218 and 219 IPC (respectively, framing an incorrect record or preparing an incorrect judgment or order by a public servant with intent to save a person from punishment, and a judicial officer knowingly passing an incorrect order or judgment in a judicial proceeding), and Section 120-B IPC (criminal conspiracy), read together, among other applicable provisions of law.
Corrupt Judges Are “Anti-National”: Madras High Court’s Stern Observations on Judicial Corruption [R. Rajaraman v. TANGEDCO, 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 4661]
In a set of forthright observations on corruption in public life, Justice S.M. Subramaniam of the Madras High Court held that judicial officers and public servants who indulge in corruption obstruct the developmental progress of the nation, and for that reason, deserve to be branded as anti-national — in the same manner that terrorists are branded anti-social elements.
The observations came in R. Rajaraman v. TANGEDCO, 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 4661 , in a writ petition filed by a TANGEDCO employee challenging his suspension following a bribery complaint against him. While the case itself concerned service-law questions around suspension pending a corruption investigation, the Court used the occasion to make wide-ranging observations on the state of corruption across public institutions.
The Court observed that corruption in India has become, in effect, a “way of life,” touching the common citizen from birth to death — spanning hospitals, schools, employment, welfare schemes, and elections. It noted this social evil is deep-rooted and has come to be treated as an accepted social phenomenon rather than an aberration.
Turning specifically to the judiciary, the Court stated plainly that the institution is not exempt from corruption, and that this reality has itself been acknowledged by senior jurists and judges. It went on to hold that corrupt judicial officers, along with other corrupt public servants, obstruct the nation’s development and therefore merit the same “anti-national” designation as those who work against the country’s interests, comparing the reasoning to how terrorism is treated as an anti-social activity. The Court described corruption within the judiciary as the greatest enemy of the Constitution, and held that the judiciary must itself take drastic measures to root out corrupt elements from within its own ranks.
The complaint seeks, that Justice Datta be called upon to resign, failing which that judicial work be withdrawn from him and a reference of impeachment be made to Rajyasabha for his removal in accordance with the in-house procedure recognised in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655, and District Judge “X” v. State of M.P., (2015) 4 SCC 91, or that sanction be granted to the complainant to prosecute him.