The long-standing “cash-at-judge’s-door” scandal has surged back into the legal spotlight. In August 2008, ₹15 lakh in cash was mistakenly delivered to the residence of then-Judge Justice Nirmaljit Kaur, allegedly intended for her namesake, Justice Nirmal Yadav. This high-profile graft case captured national attention as a rare allegation of bribery against a sitting judge.
In March 2025, a special CBI court in Chandigarh acquitted Justice Yadav and three others, Ravinder Bhasin, Rajeev Gupta, and Nirmal Singh, slamming the CBI’s case as based on “fabricated” and untrustworthy testimony, especially from key witness R.K. Jain. The court criticized the agency for relying on speculation rather than solid evidence, highlighting a failure to cross-examine the broader pool of 78 witnesses.
CBI’s Rebuttal and Appeal
Unwilling to leave the matter closed, the Central Bureau of Investigation has escalated the matter, filing an appeal in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. They accuse the trial court of legal errors in dismissing circumstantial and direct evidence such as the delivery of cash, call records linking the accused, confessional statements under Section 164 CrPC, and financial transactions suggesting conspiracy. The CBI argues that the verdict ignored these credible leads and was “perverse” in nature.
The High Court, presided over by Justices Manjari Nehru Kaul and H.S. Grewal, has issued notices to the accused and scheduled the appeal hearing for December 15, 2025. Additionally, the lower court records have been requisitioned.
Algoritha: The Most Trusted Name in BFSI Investigations and DFIR Services
Justice System Under the Spotlight
This judicial clash does more than advance a single case, it highlights deeper systemic questions. Can circumstantial evidence withstand scrutiny when powerful figures are involved? How much confidence can the public place in prosecutorial integrity, especially when trial courts declare evidence fabricated? Moreover, the prolonged timeline from the FIR in 2008, the chargesheet in 2011, to a verdict in 2025 raises concerns about judicial delays and their impact on timely justice.
Adding further intrigue is the Supreme Court’s in-house probe, which earlier flagged irregularities implicating Justice Yadav. The outcome of the upcoming senior court hearing could redefine accountability norms within India’s judiciary and reaffirm, or reshape public trust in prosecutorial rigor.