Mumbai, Maharashtra — The Bombay High Court has formally granted sanction to the Maharashtra Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) to initiate a probe into allegations of bribery against a sitting Mumbai Additional Sessions Judge, marking a rare and serious judicial accountability development.
The High Court’s vigilance division conveyed approval in late November, instructing the ACB to proceed in compliance with Supreme Court mandates governing corruption inquiries involving judicial officers, which require higher sanction.
Background of Mumbai Judge Bribery Case
The investigation stems from a complaint by businessman Sunil Ramachandran Nair, involved in a long-running commercial property dispute in Kurla, eastern Mumbai.
According to ACB remand documents, the judge’s court clerk allegedly initiated a bribe demand during the pendency of the case.
The clerk, Chandrakant Hanmant Vasudev, was allegedly directed to demand ₹25 lakh — ₹10 lakh for himself and ₹15 lakh purportedly for the judge — in return for a favorable ruling. The amount was later negotiated down to ₹15 lakh.
On November 11, the ACB laid a trap at a Starbucks in Chembur, where Vasudev was allegedly caught accepting marked currency notes.
WhatsApp Evidence and Judicial Involvement in the Mumbai Judge Bribery Case
During the sting operation, Vasudev made a WhatsApp call to the judge in the presence of independent witnesses (panchas), allegedly confirming the transaction and instructing that money be brought to his residence rather than discussed further over the phone.
After the trap, the ACB formally sought High Court sanction to proceed against the judge — a required step under legal provisions since judges enjoy certain procedural safeguards.
High Court Sanction: A Milestone in Judicial Oversight
On November 27, the Bombay High Court’s vigilance department granted the ACB permission to investigate the allegations against the judge under applicable Supreme Court guidelines, a decision that has drawn attention due to the rarity of sanction being granted in judicial corruption cases.
Following the sanction, the ACB summoned the judge for a statement on December 8, conducted a search of his residence, and seized his mobile phone and SIM card for forensic examination. Voice samples were also recorded in the presence of the judge’s legal counsel to verify consistency with intercepted communications.
Court Clerk Faces Bail; ACB Warns of Investigation Risks
Meanwhile, Vasudev, the arrested court clerk, approached the sessions court for bail. The ACB opposed bail, citing fears that his release could compromise evidence related to the ongoing probe against the judicial officer.
However, on December 19, the sessions court granted bail to Vasudev upon furnishing bail bonds totaling ₹1 lakh.
Legal and Governance Implications of Mumbai Judge Bribery Case
The case shines a spotlight on concerns about corruption within the judiciary, a branch of governance that typically enjoys strong procedural protection to preserve independence. Yet, when allegations arise, especially involving bribery and influence peddling in court rulings, enforcement agencies like the ACB must navigate complex procedure and jurisprudence to uphold accountability without undermining judicial autonomy.
Under Indian law, including the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, public servants and judicial officers accused of corruption require sanction or approval before criminal proceedings can commence, a safeguard designed to balance integrity with institutional independence.
