Shaking the judicial corridors of Delhi, the Delhi High Court has transferred a Special Judge posted at the Rouse Avenue Court following serious allegations of corruption. The judge was accused of demanding a bribe in exchange for granting bail in a GST-related case registered in 2023. The allegation came to light after an FIR was registered against the court’s record keeper (Ahlmad) on May 16, 2025, under sections pertaining to corruption.
Following this, the High Court issued a transfer order for the judge on May 20, 2025. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on May 29. The case has brought intense scrutiny on the judicial integrity at the Rouse Avenue Court, a key trial court for anti-corruption and economic offence matters in Delhi.
ALSO READ: FCRF Launches Campus Ambassador Program to Empower India’s Next-Gen Cyber Defenders
Court Staff Challenges FIR, Alleges Misuse by ACB; HC Issues Notice
The court staffer named in the FIR has approached the Delhi High Court seeking to quash the FIR registered against him, while also requesting that the case be transferred from the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) of the Delhi government to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for an independent probe.
While the High Court has not granted any immediate relief, it has issued a notice to the state. During the hearing on May 20, Justice Amit Mahajan was informed that relevant material regarding the case had already been sent to the Principal Secretary (Law) in January 2025 and later forwarded to the Administrative Committee through the Registrar General of the High Court.
The state’s additional counsel submitted that there is adequate evidence on record to support the FIR’s claims and insisted that the matter requires detailed investigation. Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the FIR was registered on the same day as an order passed by the Special Judge (PC Act) at the Rouse Avenue Court, suggesting procedural irregularities and potential bias.
Anticipatory Bail Denied; Petition Seeks Protection Under Whistleblowers Act
In parallel proceedings, the accused court staffer had also filed for anticipatory bail, which was rejected on May 22 by Special Judge Deepali Sharma. However, the court did direct the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) to issue prior notice under Sections 41 and 41A of CrPC (now Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, BNSS) in the event of an arrest.
The petitioner has now demanded that the allegations be investigated by a single CBI officer, citing the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on fair and impartial investigation in cases involving multiple allegations and potential institutional bias.
In a sensational twist, the petitioner has also requested a departmental inquiry against two ACB officers, accusing them of corruption, blackmail, forgery, misuse of government machinery, and even witness intimidation and destruction of records. Citing these concerns, he has sought protection under Section 11(2) of the Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2011, alleging harassment and retaliation.
The matter remains under judicial review, and the upcoming hearing on May 29 is expected to shed more light on both the validity of the FIR and the demand for a central probe into the broader allegations involving judicial and anti-corruption officials.