The Supreme Court took a firm stand against corruption as it refused to hear the bail plea of a 70-year-old lawyer accused of seeking a Rs.30-lakh bribe, stating he attempted to “sell the judiciary.” The bench told him, “You tried to sell a judge in the open market.”
The Supreme Court took a strong stand against corruption in the legal profession, refusing to hear a bail application from a 70-year-old lawyer accused of seeking a Rs.30 lakh bribe to influence a judicial order.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta characterized the “charges as an attempt to sell the judiciary.”
The advocate’s counsel withdrew the petition after sensing the court’s firm unwillingness to grant relief.
The case stems from August 2025, when the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered an FIR following a complaint in a divorce matter pending before a Punjab court. It is alleged that the lawyer demanded Rs.30 lakh from the complainant, claiming he could use personal influence over a judicial officer to obtain a favorable order.
ALSO READ: Behind the Gown: The Rigorous Process of Senior Advocate Designation
Acting on the complaint, the CBI conducted a trap in which a co-accused allegedly acting for the petitioner was caught accepting Rs.4 lakh as part of the demanded payment. The co-accused was arrested in August last year, and a special CBI court in Chandigarh denied his bail in September.
At Wednesday’s hearing, the petitioner’s counsel sought bail on the grounds that the advocate had been in custody for eight months, charges had not yet been framed, and the accused’s advanced age (70) and health issues warranted sympathy. The bench was unpersuaded.
The court declared,
“He is selling the judiciary… We have no sympathy for such people,”
Addressing the counsel, the bench added,
“You (petitioner) tried to sell a judge in the open market.”
When the defense again pointed to the petitioner’s age, the court noted that this was not a “simple trap case,” and observed that at 69 or 70 the accused was allegedly involved in selling judicial integrity.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court had earlier refused bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the charges, but allowed the petitioner to file a fresh bail application after two key prosecution witnesses including the complainant had been examined.
Before the High Court, the advocate maintained he was falsely implicated and described the FIR as a “motivated and malicious exercise of power.”
The CBI opposed bail, highlighting the exceptional gravity of the allegations.