Delhi High Court Orders Inquiry Against Judges for Allegedly Coercing Rape Survivor

New Delhi – In a move that has sent shockwaves through the capital's legal fraternity, the Delhi High Court has cancelled the anticipatory bail of a 51-year-old advocate accused of rape and, more significantly, ordered a high-level administrative inquiry into the conduct of two sitting judicial officers. The judges are alleged to have attempted to influence and coerce the 27-year-old complainant, a junior lawyer, into retracting her allegations against the accused.

The order, passed by Justice Amit Mahajan, underscores a profound concern for the integrity of the criminal justice system, particularly when those tasked with upholding it are implicated in its subversion. The Court's decision not only revokes the liberty of the accused but also places the judiciary's own under scrutiny, reinforcing principles of accountability and the rule of law.

“An administrative enquiry into the conduct of the concerned judicial officers, who were in contact with the prosecutrix, is also warranted, and it is directed that appropriate action in accordance with law be taken in this regard,” Justice Mahajan directed in his scathing order. The case, PJ v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr , has already led to the suspension of one judicial officer, Sanjeev Kumar Singh, pending a disciplinary probe.

---

Background of the Allegations

The case originates from a First Information Report (FIR) filed in June at Neb Sarai Police Station. The complainant, a 27-year-old lawyer, alleged that the 51-year-old accused, a widower and fellow advocate, repeatedly raped and assaulted her over five years under the false pretext of marriage. She further alleged that the relationship resulted in a pregnancy this year, following which the accused allegedly took her for an abortion and later assaulted her at a South Delhi country club.

While the Saket Sessions Court granted the accused advocate anticipatory bail in July, the complainant approached the High Court seeking its cancellation. She claimed that the accused continued to threaten her and, critically, was attempting to influence her through his connections within the judiciary.

Her counsel submitted that the prosecutrix was contacted by judicial officers who allegedly advised her to forgo her medical examination, offered a monetary settlement of ₹30 lakhs to compromise the matter, and coerced her to dilute her statement to the police.

The High Court's Scrutiny and Findings

Justice Amit Mahajan’s judgment expressed deep dismay at the evidence presented, which included audio recordings of conversations. The Court found the allegations of judicial interference to be the "most glaring" aspect of the case.

“While this Court does not consider it apposite to explicitly list all the incriminating portions of the conversation, however, ex facie, specific assertions of ₹30 lakhs in cash being kept for being paid to the prosecutrix are repeatedly made during the course of the conversation. The Judicial Officer–1 also offers job to the prosecutrix,” the Court noted.

While observing that the conversations with the second judicial officer were more benign and appeared to be those of an acquaintance, the Court held that the conduct of the first officer, coupled with the actions of the accused, constituted an "egregious affront to the principles of justice."

The judgment clarified that while the initial order granting bail by the trial court might not have been erroneous based on the material available then, the subsequent conduct of the accused fundamentally changed the circumstances. Justice Mahajan stated that the accused’s attempts to subvert the legal process and influence the complainant had "shocked the conscience of this court."

"Liberty of bail ought to be withdrawn when attempts are made to subvert the trial or sway witnesses,” the order asserted, highlighting a core tenet for bail cancellation. The Court reasoned that allowing the accused to remain free posed a "grave possibility" of him "further attempting to influence witnesses or tampering with evidence."

Consequently, the High Court cancelled the anticipatory bail and directed the accused advocate to surrender to the trial court within one week.

---

Legal and Ethical Implications for the Judiciary and Bar

The High Court's order transcends the facts of a single criminal case, raising critical questions about judicial ethics, accountability, and the power dynamics within the legal profession.

1. Judicial Accountability in Focus: The directive for an administrative inquiry is a significant step. It signals a zero-tolerance approach from the High Court towards any perceived interference in the judicial process by its own officers. The outcome of this inquiry will be closely watched, as it will serve as a benchmark for how the judiciary addresses allegations of misconduct from within its ranks. The suspension of one officer even before the final judgment indicates the gravity with which the High Court administration is treating the matter.

2. Principles of Bail Cancellation Reaffirmed: The judgment provides a strong precedent on the grounds for cancelling bail. It reinforces the principle that bail is not an absolute right and can be revoked if the accused misuses their liberty to obstruct justice. The court's focus on post-bail conduct—specifically, attempts to influence the prosecutrix—serves as a stark warning that such actions will have severe consequences. Justice Mahajan noted that the circumstances were "so overwhelming that they have shocked the conscience of this court," justifying interference with the accused's liberty.

3. Power Dynamics and Protection of Junior Lawyers: The case highlights the vulnerability of junior members of the bar, particularly when pitted against senior lawyers with influential connections. The allegations suggest a misuse of professional stature and connections to intimidate and coerce a victim. This incident is likely to fuel ongoing conversations within bar associations and legal circles about creating safer, more equitable professional environments and robust support systems for young lawyers facing harassment or intimidation.

4. Upholding the Sanctity of the Criminal Justice System: At its core, the High Court’s intervention is about protecting the sanctity of the legal process. Justice Mahajan observed that the allegations indicated a "flagrant lack of respect towards the criminal machinery." By cancelling bail and initiating an inquiry, the Court has sent an unequivocal message that no individual, regardless of their position as a lawyer or judge, is above the law or can be permitted to manipulate the course of justice.

The case was argued by advocates Jitendra Kumar Jha and Bhagwan Jha for the complainant. The accused lawyer was represented by a team led by Senior Advocates Vikas Pahwa and Madhav Khurana. The State was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Sunil Kumar Gautam. As the criminal case proceeds and the administrative inquiry unfolds, this matter will remain a crucial test of the justice system's ability to police itself and ensure that justice is not only done but is also seen to be done, free from fear or favour.