Rs 50 Lakh Bribe Claim: Senior Advocate Accused of Taking Rs 50 Lakh to Bribe Judge; Madras High Court Calls for Probe
The Madras High Court has directed an inquiry after serious allegations were made that a senior advocate collected ₹50 lakh from a client by claiming that the money would be used to bribe a judge.
Justice Nirmal Kumar recused himself from hearing the case after receiving information about a representation submitted by the All India Lawyers Association for Justice (AILAJ). The association alleged that the senior advocate had taken ₹50 lakh from a client, stating that the amount was meant to secure favourable orders from the judge.
The representation was forwarded to the court through the Ministry of Law and Justice. It further stated that even after the alleged payment, no order had been passed in the case. The association requested the judge to either pass appropriate orders or initiate suitable action.
Taking note of the seriousness of the allegations, Justice Nirmal Kumar decided not to continue hearing the matter. He directed that the case be placed before the Chief Justice for assignment to another bench. He also ordered that the issue be referred to the Vigilance Cell of the High Court for conducting an inquiry and taking appropriate action.
The senior advocate concerned denied the allegations and stated that they were completely false. He expressed readiness to cooperate with any investigation. The Special Public Prosecutor argued that such representations should not be entertained as they could harm the dignity of the judiciary.
The matter arises from a criminal revision petition filed by N. Ganesh Agarwal. He had challenged the order of the Special Court for CBI Cases, which had dismissed his discharge plea and refused to quash the chargesheet filed against him.
The allegations against Agarwal relate to an alleged criminal conspiracy between 2008 and 2009. He is accused of cheating the Metal and Minerals Trading Corporation of India of ₹113.38 crore by speculating on foreign exchange fluctuations and failing to take forward cover under the Buyers Credit Scheme.
The case, titled N Ganesh Agarwal v. The Inspector of Police, will now be listed before an appropriate bench as decided by the Chief Justice.
