When an Additional Sessions Judge at Delhi’s Tis Hazari Courts found an envelope marked “SECRET” on his desk in 2021, its contents revealed an attempt to influence a recruitment interview for the post of court orderly. Inside the packet were ₹50,000 in cash and a photocopy of a candidate’s roll number.
The delivery was traced to Tara Dutt, a former Assistant Sub-Inspector with Delhi Police. The prosecution alleged that Dutt sought to secure a job for a man named Mukul Kumar by offering a bribe to the judge, who sat on the recruitment committee.
This week, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna reaffirmed Dutt’s conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act), calling the case “an instance of corruption so deeply embedded within our system that it fosters a perception that anything can be bought with money.”
However, the judge simultaneously acquitted Dutt of criminal conspiracy charges and cleared Mukul Kumar and his father Ramesh Kumar of all wrongdoing.
Court Dissects the Evidence
The High Court’s ruling turns on how the evidence distinguished personal misconduct from collective criminal intent.
While the envelope clearly came from Dutt—its delivery through a court constable was corroborated—the prosecution failed to show that Mukul Kumar or his father were part of any coordinated plan. Their names appeared in no incriminating communication, nor did they participate in the delivery of the bribe.
The court found “no sustainable evidence” of an agreement between the three men, rendering the conspiracy charge under Section 120B of the IPC legally infirm.
On the other hand, the PC Act conviction stood firm. Justice Krishna described the evidence as “overwhelming,” noting that the cash-filled envelope and interview documents left “no further elaboration” needed to prove that the money was intended to influence the recruitment process.
Arguments that the handwriting on the word “SECRET” had not been matched to Dutt did not sway the court. “Whosoever may have written the word ‘secret,’” the judge said, “the most significant aspect is who delivered the packet.”
A Broader Indictment of Systemic Corruption
Beyond the immediate facts of the case, the High Court delivered a somber reflection on the pervasiveness of corruption in India.
“Corruption is so frequent and rampant, infesting all avenues of Government service and officials high and low,” the judgment states. Only a few cases come to light, the court observed, because the practice of exchanging money for favors has become “entrenched and accepted.”
The ruling lamented that despite India’s independence in 1947, “the Nation has regrettably failed to liberate itself from the deeply set and pervasive tentacles of corruption.”
These remarks underscore judicial frustration with institutional misconduct that undermines public trust in administrative and court recruitment processes.
Legal Outcomes and Implications
With the latest decision:
- Tara Dutt’s conviction under Section 12 of the PC Act remains intact, affirming his three-year sentence.
- He is acquitted of conspiracy charges under Section 120B IPC.
- Mukul Kumar and Ramesh Kumar are fully acquitted, with the court finding no evidence against them.
The case highlights a persistent challenge for the judiciary: distinguishing individual acts of bribery from the broader networks often implicated in corruption offenses.
As the High Court’s strongly worded observations circulated among legal circles, the judgment was seen not merely as a ruling on a single bribe attempt, but as a call to confront how entrenched corruption continues to distort recruitment, governance, and public perceptions of justice.
