The Bombay High Court has granted sanction to the Maharashtra ACB to investigate bribery allegations against a sitting Mumbai Additional Sessions Judge. The probe relates to an alleged Rs 15 lakh bribe demand linked to a pending property dispute case.
Mumbai: In a rare and serious step showing judicial accountability, the Bombay High Court has given official permission to the Maharashtra Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) to investigate bribery allegations against a sitting Mumbai Additional Sessions Judge.
The approval was given by the High Court’s vigilance department in late November, allowing the ACB to move forward strictly as per Supreme Court guidelines that apply when corruption allegations involve judicial officers and require higher-level sanction.
ALSO READ: Bribery Case || Bombay HC Rejects Anticipatory Bail To Satara Judge Dhananjay Nikam
The case started from a complaint filed by businessman Sunil Ramachandran Nair, who has been involved in a long-pending commercial property dispute related to land in Kurla, eastern Mumbai. According to documents placed before the court by the ACB, the alleged demand for a bribe was made while the case was still pending before the judge.
As per the ACB’s remand papers, the judge’s court clerk, Chandrakant Hanmant Vasudev, allegedly approached the complainant with a demand for money.
It is alleged that Vasudev demanded a total bribe of Rs 25 lakh — Rs 10 lakh for himself and Rs 15 lakh allegedly meant for the judge — in return for a favourable court order. During negotiations, the amount was reportedly reduced to Rs 15 lakh.
Acting on the complaint, the ACB laid a trap on November 11 at a Starbucks outlet in Chembur. Vasudev was allegedly caught red-handed while accepting marked currency notes. The trap was conducted in the presence of independent witnesses, commonly referred to as “panchas”, to ensure transparency of the operation.
During the trap, Vasudev allegedly made a WhatsApp call to the judge in front of the witnesses. According to the ACB, the call involved confirmation of the transaction, and Vasudev was allegedly told that further discussion should not take place on the phone and that the money should instead be brought to the judge’s residence. This call has become a key part of the evidence in the case.
Following the arrest of the clerk, the ACB approached the Bombay High Court seeking permission to proceed against the judge.
Such approval is mandatory under law because judicial officers enjoy procedural safeguards to protect judicial independence. On November 27, the High Court’s vigilance department granted sanction to the ACB to investigate the judge under applicable Supreme Court guidelines.
This decision has drawn significant public attention, as such sanctions are rarely granted in cases involving members of the judiciary.
After receiving the sanction, the ACB summoned the judge on December 8 for recording his statement. The agency also conducted a search at the judge’s residence and seized his mobile phone and SIM card for forensic analysis.
To further verify the alleged communication, the ACB recorded the judge’s voice samples in the presence of his legal counsel so that they could be matched with intercepted audio evidence.
Meanwhile, Chandrakant Hanmant Vasudev, the arrested court clerk, applied for bail before the sessions court. The ACB strongly opposed the bail plea, arguing that his release could affect the investigation and lead to tampering with evidence, especially since the probe against the judicial officer was still ongoing.
Despite the ACB’s objections, the sessions court granted bail to Vasudev on December 19. He was released after furnishing bail bonds amounting to Rs 1 lakh.
The case has once again raised serious questions about corruption within the judicial system, an institution that is generally protected by strong legal safeguards to preserve its independence.
While these safeguards are necessary, cases involving allegations of bribery and influence over court decisions place enforcement agencies like the ACB in a difficult position, as they must balance judicial autonomy with the need for accountability.
Under Indian law, including the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, judges and other public servants cannot be prosecuted without prior sanction. This requirement is meant to prevent misuse of criminal law against officials performing their duties.
However, when credible allegations surface, the grant of sanction becomes an important tool to ensure that no one is above the law and that public trust in the justice system is maintained.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Judge Bribery Case
