Delhi Court Judge Recuses Herself Following Lawyer's Corruption Allegations
A Delhi court judge has recused herself from hearing an anticipatory bail plea after the complainant's counsel allegedly levelled serious corruption allegations against her during proceedings conducted via video conferencing. The incident has sparked controversy and led to disciplinary action being initiated against the lawyer involved.
Allegations of Bribery in Court Proceedings
According to the official order sheet from the proceedings, the lawyer appearing for the complainant made direct accusations against Judge Shivali Bansal, stating in Hindi: "Paisa kha ke baithi hai. Isliye kuch nahi kar rahi" which translates to "she has taken a bribe. That's why she is doing nothing." The allegations were made during what should have been a routine legal proceeding.
Judge Bansal, responding to what she described as inappropriate conduct, observed that the court was no longer inclined to hear the matter under these circumstances. She directed that a complete copy of the order sheet be immediately forwarded to the Bar Council of Delhi for necessary information and appropriate action against the lawyer who made the allegations.
Background of the Anticipatory Bail Application
The controversy emerged during the hearing of an anticipatory bail application filed by accused Pranav Grover under Section 482 of the newly implemented Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). During initial hearings, the investigating officer informed the court that Grover had not yet joined the investigation process as required.
The counsel representing Grover submitted to the court that his client was willing to cooperate fully with authorities. After considering submissions from both sides, the court directed Grover to join the investigation with the investigating officer on March 7 at 2 pm, while simultaneously granting him interim protection from arrest until that time.
Escalation of Courtroom Tensions
Later that same day, the situation deteriorated when the complainant's counsel appeared through video conferencing and allegedly began shouting in court. The lawyer claimed that the court had ordered police to recover a pet dog by 2 pm and questioned why this direction had not been complied with. The court promptly clarified that no such direction had ever been issued regarding any pet animal.
The presiding officer warned the counsel against repeating such conduct and attempting to disrupt court proceedings. However, the situation escalated further when the same lawyer appeared again through video conferencing later that afternoon and made direct allegations of corruption against Judge Bansal.
The lawyer reportedly stated: "Agar aaj High Court khula hota, toh main chief justice ke court mein ja kar mention karta. Tum public servant ho, main officer of the Court hun" which translates to "If the High Court was open today, I would have gone to the chief justice's court and mentioned this matter. You are a public servant, I am an officer of the Court."
Preservation of Evidence and Judicial Response
In response to these serious allegations, the court declined to hear the matter further and took the significant step of ordering that all audio and video recordings of the proceedings be preserved for future reference. This preservation of digital evidence creates a formal record of exactly what transpired during the controversial hearing.
The judge's decision to recuse herself from the case represents a significant development in maintaining judicial propriety and addressing allegations that could potentially compromise the perceived impartiality of court proceedings. The matter now moves to the Bar Council of Delhi, which will determine appropriate disciplinary measures against the lawyer involved in making the corruption allegations.
This incident highlights the challenges courts face in maintaining decorum during virtual proceedings and the serious consequences that can result from allegations made against judicial officers during official hearings. The preservation of audio-visual evidence ensures that an accurate record exists for any future investigations into the matter.
