Mumbai — When a businessman approached a local court seeking relief in a land dispute involving his wife’s property, he did not expect that his case would plunge the city’s judicial system into a widening corruption scandal. But within weeks, the matter escalated from quiet demands for bribes to the sudden disappearance of an additional sessions judge now named a wanted accused.
According to the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), the case began when the judge’s clerk, Chandrakant Vasudeo, allegedly approached the complainant inside a courthouse washroom, suggesting that “doing something for Saheb” — a reference to the judge — would ensure a favourable order. Over several phone calls, the clerk allegedly demanded ₹25 lakh, later reducing the amount to ₹15 lakh.
Frustrated, the complainant turned to the ACB, which instructed him to continue the negotiations. The clerk arranged a meeting at a café in Chembur on November 10. The man arrived with marked currency notes, ACB officers followed, and the clerk was arrested on the spot.
What officers uncovered next led the case in an unexpected direction.
Evidence Points to the Judge — And Then He Vanishes
During his interrogation, Vasudeo allegedly confessed that he had collected the bribe not for himself but on behalf of the presiding additional sessions judge at the Mazgaon civil court, Aejazuddin Salauddin Kazi. The clerk claimed the judge had personally instructed him to solicit ₹15 lakh to secure a favourable verdict.
Acting on ACB directions, Vasudeo called the judge on speakerphone in the presence of investigators and witnesses. On the recorded call, the judge allegedly acknowledged the bribe amount and instructed the clerk to bring the money to his residence the next day.
But when ACB officers went to the judge’s home on November 12, the house was locked. A formal sealing was carried out in the presence of another judge and independent witnesses. Since then, investigators say, Judge Kazi has not been found.
Police officials told reporters that the judge “played an active role in the crime” and maintained a “cordial relationship” with his clerk, often communicating with him over WhatsApp. The Bombay High Court has been informed, and permission for a full inquiry is under process.
Inside a System Already Haunted by Quiet Corruption
The revelations have reignited a long-standing critique of India’s lower judiciary: that clerks, typists, runners and other support staff often act as illicit intermediaries for judges.
Former litigants and legal observers have long alleged that “vishesh sahyogis,” or special assistants, form an internal ecosystem where bribe demands are negotiated quietly, and court staff act as buffers who shield judges from direct exposure. In many cases, those caught are expected to take responsibility alone, betting that the judge’s influence will eventually secure relief.
This case is unusual not because a clerk was caught — but because the alleged involvement of the judge is now supported by phone evidence, recorded instructions and sworn testimony.
“This is not the exception; it’s the norm,” said a legal activist familiar with past inquiries into judicial corruption. “What is rare is documented proof of a judge directly participating.”
A Judiciary Under Scrutiny and a Case Still Unfolding
The Anti-Corruption Bureau says the investigation is widening. Officers are reviewing chat logs, call records and prior case files handled by Judge Kazi and the arrested clerk. They are also examining whether similar demands may have been made in other commercial or land dispute matters.
The clerk has been remanded to judicial custody, and his bail plea will be heard on November 19. The judge remains untraceable, and authorities fear he may have fled the city.
Meanwhile, the incident has stirred quiet unease within Mumbai’s legal community. Senior officers say the case will require a delicate balance: safeguarding judicial independence while ensuring accountability for alleged criminal misconduct.
For now, the question that troubles investigators is not merely who asked for the bribe — but how deep the arrangement went, how many cases may have been influenced, and whether this scandal is a symptom of a much larger structural problem in India’s courts.
