The Punjab & Haryana High Court has ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a probe into serious allegations that an advocate accepted five lakh rupees from a litigant under the pretense of bribing a judicial officer and a government pleader. The bench of Justice Sandeep Moudgil made this direction after assessing the gravity of the accusations and the potential implications for trust in the judicial system.
The case arose when a former sarpanch filed a petition claiming that he had paid the advocate this sum, intending that portions of it be given to both the government pleader and a judicial officer, in order to secure a favourable writ petition outcome. The sarpanch alleged that when the case outcome was not as expected, he faced threats from the advocate to return the fees. The advocate, in turn, filed a protection plea, asserting that the petitioner's allegations were baseless and that his life had been threatened for not returning professional fees.
During the proceedings, the court noted that Chandigarh Police had recorded the statement of the ex-sarpanch—referred to as Respondent No. 6—who claimed the payment was to be made in tranches. However, the statement did not name the judicial officer or the government pleader purportedly involved. Despite these missing names, the court deemed the allegations too serious to be left unexamined by investigating agencies with ordinary jurisdiction.
Justice Moudgil stressed that the issues raised go beyond personal disputes and touch upon institutional integrity. The bench remarked that in a democracy, both the bench and the bar occupy essential, interdependent roles, and any allegations casting doubt on the conduct of legal professionals or judicial officers call for scrutiny in order to preserve public confidence.
Given the sensitive nature of the charge—that an advocate solicited money to influence official conduct—the court found it necessary for a neutral, independent agency to take over. The CBI was asked to take immediate cognisance of the complaints, carry out a thorough investigation of all relevant facets, and issue a detailed report within a timeframe to be set by the court.
The matter before the High Court is titled Ankush Dhanerwal v. State of Punjab and Others. In court, the petitioner was represented by Advocate Jatinder Pal Singh, while the State was represented by the Deputy Advocate General of Punjab, J. S. Rattu, and Additional Public Prosecutor Ankur Bali appeared for other respondents.
Crucially, the court did not accept the advocate’s contention that the allegations were simply contractual or professional disputes over fees. Instead, the possibility that a part of the money was intended for judicial or governmental officers made the case distinct and serious. Even though the advocate’s defence points out that names were omitted, the court made clear that omissions of that nature do not diminish the necessity for investigation, considering the gravity of the claims.
Through its order, the High Court has underscored the principle that allegations implicating judicial officers or the government pleader—especially involving claims of bribery—cannot be dismissed lightly, even in early stages. Judicial oversight and investigation are critical to ensure that the legal profession maintains public trust, and that no individual stands above allegations of wrongdoing without proper inquiry.
The court’s direction to refer the case to the CBI reflects recognition that state investigative agencies may be subject to local pressures, and that impartiality in investigating matters affecting judicial accountability is essential. The case is thus now entrusted to an agency seen as equipped to handle sensitive investigations, with the expectation that its report will inform subsequent judicial action.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.