Judge suspended over allegations of appointing ineligible auctioneers, enabling receipt of pay beyond norms

The allegations formed the basis of a vigilance inquiry ordered by high court chief justice DK Upadhyaya after receiving a complaint on August 20, 2025.

The Delhi High Court suspended district judge Vinay Singhal last week over allegations that he appointed a group of ineligible advocates as court auctioneers and passed judicial orders enabling them to receive payments beyond permissible limits under the relevant rules, HT has learnt.

The complaint, submitted by an advocate who had been appointed a court auctioneer, alleged that several others were appointed despite failing to satisfy the eligibility conditions prescribed by the Delhi High Court and were subsequently paid honoraria beyond the limits stipulated under the high court rules. (Representative photo)

The allegations formed the basis of a vigilance inquiry ordered by high court chief justice DK Upadhyaya after receiving a complaint on August 20, 2025. The inquiry is understood to have raised concerns over a possible nexus between the judicial officer and some of the beneficiaries of the appointments, according to people familiar with the matter.

The full court, which approved Singhal’s suspension on July 10, took the decision after considering the vigilance report, obtaining comments from the principal district and sessions judge concerned, and giving Singhal an opportunity to explain his position, the people cited above said.

Singhal did not respond to HT’s requests for comment.

The complaint, submitted by an advocate who had been appointed a court auctioneer, alleged that several others were appointed despite failing to satisfy the eligibility conditions prescribed by the Delhi High Court and were subsequently paid honoraria beyond the limits stipulated under the high court rules.

Through circulars issued from time to time, the high court has prescribed eligibility criteria, including a minimum of five years’ standing at the Bar and an annual income of at least ₹15,000, (as applicable when the complaint was filed). Under these Rules, 80% of the admissible commission is payable to the auctioneer, while the remaining 20% is deposited into the government treasury.

The development marks the latest instance of the court invoking its disciplinary jurisdiction over members of the subordinate judiciary. Last year, as first reported by HT, the full court suspended district judge Sanjeev Kumar Singh and initiated disciplinary proceedings against another judicial officer, Anil Kumar, following a vigilance inquiry into allegations of judicial misconduct arising from a complaint by a woman lawyer.

According to the people cited above, the vigilance inquiry focused not merely on irregular appointments but also on judicial orders passed by Singhal authorising payments beyond the prescribed limits, prompting the high court to contemplate disciplinary proceedings.

The Delhi HC made the suspension public through a resolution issued by registrar general Arun Bhardwaj on July 10, stating that disciplinary proceedings against Singhal were contemplated.

“Whereas a disciplinary proceedings against Mr Vinay Singhal, an officer of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service is contemplated. Now, therefore, this Court in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 read with Rule 27 of Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970, hereby places the said Mr. Vinay Singhal under suspension with immediate effect,” the resolution stated.

The resolution further directed that, during the period of suspension, Singhal’s headquarters shall remain the office of the principal district and sessions judge (headquarters), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. “It is further ordered that during the period that this order shall remain in force, the headquarters of Mr Vinay Singhal shall be the office of Principal District & Sessions Judge (HQs.), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and the said Mr Vinay Singhal shall not leave Delhi without obtaining the prior permission of the competent authority,” it read.