Misconduct case: HC orders inquiry against 2 dist judges

Delhi High Court orders inquiry into judges accused of pressuring a lawyer to withdraw rape allegations against an advocate; anticipatory bail cancelled.

The Delhi High Court on Friday ordered an administrative inquiry against two district court judges accused by a woman lawyer of pressuring her to withdraw rape allegations made against a Delhi-based advocate.

(Getty Images/iStockphoto)

The direction was issued by a bench of justice Amit Mahajan while dealing with a petition filed by the woman lawyer seeking to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the 51-year-old advocate on July 16. This, even as the high court in a full court meeting on August 29 suspended one of the district judges, Sanjeev Kumar Singh, and recommended disciplinary proceedings against him and another judge, Anil Kumar, based on woman’s allegations.

As first reported by HT on September 2, the complaint was backed by audio recordings, which prompted the swift intervention. Records of the full court meeting of August 28, seen by HT, had revealed that the suspension of Singh and the decision to initiate proceedings against both Singh and Kumar were sparked by complaints of grave judicial misconduct that the woman complainant made before HC Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya in July, and later to the registrar general, following which a vigilance inquiry was ordered.

The complainant also contended that she was also introduced to a then sitting Delhi high court judge in January 2025, through the accused’s lawyer, who promised to get her appointed as a law researcher. There is no indication in the records, however, of any role of the high court judge in the present case, and the disciplinary proceedings are confined to Singh and Kumar. Her complaint, as mentioned in the full court meeting records, alleged that both Singh and Kumar repeatedly called her on her personal numbers after she lodged the FIR, instructing her not to undergo medical examination and to tell a magistrate that the registration of the case was a mistake. According to her, Singh went a step further, offering her a monetary settlement on behalf of the accused and claiming that he had already received ₹30 lakh from the lawyer, which would be given to her if she agreed to compromise.

In her petition before the high court, the woman represented by advocate Jitendra Kumar Jha also asserted she had interned with both the judges and that Kumar, besides coercing her to retract the allegations, had also asked her to not oppose the lawyer’s pre-arrest bail, when he was granted interim protection on June 28. She also submitted that the trial court gave undue deference to the man’s profession and granted bail even though he kept contacting her.

The 51-year-old man’s counsel, senior advocate Vikas Pahwa, argued that the allegations against his client were vague and general, lacking specific details or dates of the alleged incidents. He further contended that the FIR was filed with an unexplained delay, as the first purported incident occurred in 2020 while the complaint was registered only on June 25 and the two were involved in a prolonged and consensual relationship. He further contended that the chat records cited by the woman actually demonstrated that she was the one persistently attempting to contact the judicial officers.

Delhi Police had asserted that the chargesheet had already been filed and further investigation in the present case was underway.

Accordingly, in its 28-page order, the court directed an administrative inquiry into the conduct of the judges, observing that the allegations reflected a blatant disregard for the integrity of the criminal justice system. The court observed that while Singh had on several occasions offered ₹30 lakh and even a job, the conversations with Kumar did not appear to show any explicit attempt to influence the prosecutrix through monetary offers or other means, but rather seemed like a casual exchange between acquaintances.

“While this Court does not consider it apposite to explicitly list all the incriminating portions of the conversation, however, ex facie, specific assertions of ₹30 lakhs in cash being kept for being paid to the prosecutrix are repeatedly made during the course of the conversation. The Judicial Officer–1 also offers job to the prosecutrix. While the conversations will be subject to further enquiry, prima facie, unlike the conversation with Judicial Officer–1, the conversations with Judicial Officer–2 do not appear to reflect any explicit attempt at influencing the prosecutrix by way of monetary considerations or otherwise and appears to be a mere conversation a person would have with an acquaintance,” the court maintained. It added, “An administrative inquiry into the conduct of the concerned judicial officers, who were in contact with the prosecutrix, is also warranted, and it is directed that appropriate action in accordance with law be taken in this regard.”

The court also cancelled the advocate’s bail, saying that a bare perusal of the status report and the transcripts indicated that he made an egregious affront to the principles of justice by attempting to pay the woman through judicial officers, who concededly have authoritative influence. The allegations in the case, the judge said, cannot be “shirked casually.”