HC judge recuses from case after ‘bribery attempt’

A Madras HC judge recused himself from a case amid bribery allegations against a senior advocate, calling for a vigilance inquiry to ensure judicial integrity.

A Madras high court judge has recused himself from hearing a case and called for a vigilance inquiry following allegations that a senior advocate received ₹50 lakh from a client to bribe him to secure a favourable order, bringing the spotlight back on judicial integrity and corruption.

An FIR at the ACB police station in Faridabad was registered against the duo for bribery and extortion on December 5.

The matter came to light on February 5 this year when justice M Nirmal Kumar was hearing an original petition and a related criminal revision case that was admitted by the court in 2014 and 2015, respectively. It pertained to proceedings involving the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and allegations in a corruption case pending before a Special Court for CBI cases in Chennai. However, he recused from the hearing after the high court registry informed the court that it had received a communication from the Union law ministry, asking it to look into the allegations of bribery.

According to the court’s order, the registry received a communication from the law ministry enclosing a representation submitted by a Chennai-based association named All India Lawyers Association for Justice (AILAJ). The representation allegedly claimed that a senior advocate, M Murali Kumaran, the counsel for the petitioner in the original petition, took ₹50 lakh from his client, claiming that the amount was to be given to the judge hearing the case in return for a favourable order.

Justice Kumar, who was presiding over the matter, shared the contents of the communication in the open court with the Special Public Prosecutor for CBI and with senior counsel Kumaran. The senior advocate denied the allegations, stating that they were “totally false” and expressed readiness to “cooperate with any inquiry.”

The representation made by AILAJ was received by the law ministry last month. “A Senior Advocate has collected a sum of ₹50,000 from the client stating that the said amount has to be given to your lordship in respect of the case... however, even after the receipt of the amount, no order has been passed till date in the case,” it reads.

The Association then urged the ministry to either direct the judge concerned to pass a “suitable order in favour of the client,” or, to initiate any other “suitable action.”

The Special Public Prosecutor K Srinivasan, however, urged Justice Kumar not to engage further with the allegations. He argued that such representations should not be entertained lightly and that they affected the dignity of the court.

He also urged that stern steps be taken to identify the person behind what he described as a “false representation” and to initiate appropriate action.

Justice Kumar then observed that in view of the “specific allegations” contained in the representation, it would be appropriate to refer the issue to the Vigilance Cell of the High Court. He said he was not inclined to continue hearing the matter and directed that the case be placed before the Chief Justice for posting before an appropriate bench and for initiating an inquiry.

The order also called for suitable directions to the Vigilance Cell to conduct an inquiry and take appropriate action.

Subsequently, the judge recused himself from the case, citing the need to ensure institutional propriety and maintain public confidence in the judiciary.

“This Court finds that it is appropriate for the issue to be referred to the Vigilance Cell of the Madras High Court. Hence, this Court is not inclined to hear this case. It is appropriate that the matter is placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for posting before an appropriate Bench and also to issue appropriate directions to the Vigilance Cell to conduct enquiry and to take appropriate action in this regard,” Justice Kumar said.

The Registry remained unavailable for comment.

The vigilance cell is expected to examine the allegations and submit its findings in due course. Meanwhile, the criminal revision and connected petition will be listed before another bench as directed by Chief Justice MM Shrivastava.

The episode has once again placed the spotlight on issues of professional ethics and judicial accountability within the legal system, even as the allegations remain to be tested through a formal inquiry.

This incident comes against the backdrop of broader concerns about judicial accountability in India, where data provided to the Lok Sabha by the union law ministry shows that the office of the Chief Justice of India received 8,630 complaints against sitting Supreme Court and high court judges between 2016 and 2025, with recent years seeing particularly high numbers, underscoring ongoing scrutiny of judicial conduct and public trust in the system.