Madras HC judge recuses self over allegation lawyer took Rs 50 lakh to bribe him

CHENNAI: A Madras high court judge recused himself from hearing a criminal case following an allegation that a senior advocate took 50 lakh from a client for a favourable order. The judge also referred the issue to the vigilance cell.

The issue pertained to a criminal revision petition and a criminal original petition moved by N Ganesh Agarwal and Naresh Prasad Agarwal, in connection with an order passed by the XII additional special judge for CBI cases, Chennai.

On Feb 5, when the plea came up for hearing, Justice M Nirmal Kumar referred to a communication received by the registry from Union ministry of law.

The communication came with an annexure, a representation from All India Lawyers' Association for Justice (AILAJ).

The representation addressed to Justice Nirmal Kumar said: "A senior advocate collected 50 lakh from his client, stating that the said amount had to be given to your lordship (Justice Nirmal Kumar) in respect of the criminal revision and original petitions heard by your lordship."

"However, even after the receipt of the said amount, no orders were passed till date. We, therefore, humbly request your lordship to kindly pass a suitable order in favour of the client. Otherwise, we request your lordship to kindly initiate suitable action in respect of the above case," the representation signed by the secretary of AILAJ said.

The court shared the communication with the special public prosecutor for CBI K Srinivasan and senior counsel for the appellant, Murali Kumaran, appearing for Gopinath Agarwal.

Murali Kumaran submitted that the allegations contained in the representation were false, and he was ready to cooperate with inquiry.

HC not inclined to hear this case: Judge
Srinivasan submitted that this type of representation should not be entertained, and such representation affects the dignity of the court and, therefore, stern steps should be taken to find the person behind such false representation and to take appropriate action.

Recording the submissions, Justice Nirmal Kumar said, "In view of specific allegations contained in the representation by AILAJ, Chennai, this court finds it is appropriate that the issue is referred to the vigilance cell of the high court. Hence, this court is not inclined to hear this case." It is appropriate that the matter is placed before the Chief Justice of the high court for posting the case before an appropriate bench and to issue appropriate directions to the vigilance cell to conduct a search and to take appropriate action in this regard, the judge added.