New Delhi [India], May 24: The Delhi High Court has transferred a special judge from Rouse Avenue Court following serious allegations of bribery involving the grant of bail in a GST-related case registered in 2023. This development comes after an FIR was filed against a court record keeper on May 16, 2025, under corruption charges.
The High Court ordered the judge’s transfer on May 20, following the registration of the FIR against the court staff. Allegations suggest the staff demanded a bribe to facilitate bail for an accused in the GST case.
The court staff, designated as an Ahlmad (record keeper), approached the Delhi High Court seeking to quash the FIR. During the hearing on May 20, Justice Amit Mahajan issued a notice to the State but did not grant any interim relief. The court scheduled the next hearing for May 29.
Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur, representing the petitioner, argued that the FIR was retaliatory, filed shortly after the Special Judge issued a show-cause notice to the Joint Commissioner of the Anti-Corruption Branch on May 16, potentially for contempt of court.
The State’s counsel submitted that the matter had already been brought to the notice of the Principal Secretary of Law and the Administrative Committee of the High Court, with sufficient material warranting investigation.
The accused staff member has also filed a plea requesting the transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for an impartial probe. He also called for a departmental inquiry against two officers of the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB), alleging misconduct, blackmail, fabrication of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses.
The petitioner has sought protection under Section 11(2) of the Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2011, citing fear of victimisation by the ACB.
In a related development, Special Judge Deepali Sharma on May 22 dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of the court staff but directed the ACB to serve prior notice under Sections 41 and 41A of the CrPC (now Section 35 of BNSS) before any arrest is made.
This case has raised serious questions about judicial integrity and inter-agency accountability, as the High Court continues to oversee both the investigation and internal disciplinary proceedings.