Can CBI prosecute a High Court Judge?
A little background: - 04.09.2008 , reported,
On 13 th August, Additional Advocate General Sandeep Bansal, through his munshi Prakash Chand delivered a packet containing Rs 15 lakhs in cash to the residence of Justice Nirmaljit Kaur, a Punjab and Haryana High Court judge. She called the police. Bansal was arrested by the police. He resigned from the position of AG immediately and apparently told the police that the money was wrongly delivered to Justice Kaur's residence and that it was actually meant for Justice Nirmal Yadav. He claimed that he had sent his munshi with the currency notes because the money was needed for a land deal made by the judge in Solan in Himachal Pradesh.
It seems another sum of Rs. 15 lakhs was delivered at Justice Yadav's home the next day by Bansal's friend and property dealer Rajiv Gupta.
Justice Nirmal Yadav was a Judicial Member of the ITAT and was posted in Mumbai for about 2 years before her elevation on 05.11.2004.
The CBI took charge of the case, but in 2009 filed a closure report. Closure report was examined by the Special Judge (CBI Court), Chandigarh. On examination, the Special Judge refused to accept the closure report vide his order dated 26.3.2010 and directed the CBI to conduct further investigation. CBI carried out further investigation in due deference to the order of the Special Judge and approached the competent authority for grant of sanction for prosecution. The competent authority i.e. the President of India vide order dated 1.3.2011 granted sanction for prosecution of Justice (?) Nirmal yadav under Section 19 of PC Act for commission of offence punishable under Section 11 of the PC Act and other offences. As a consequence of the sanction for prosecution, a charge-sheet under Section 120-B of the IPC, Sections 11 and 12 of PC Act read with Sections 192, 193, 196, 199 and 200 of the IPC has been presented in the court of Special Judge (CBI Court), Chandigarh. The Special Judge took cognizance of the charge sheet by passing order dated 18.4.2011 and summoned the accused (former High Court Judge).
Madam Nirmala Yadav challenged the sanction order, charge sheet and the proceedings initiated against her, including the order of taking cognizance by the Special Judge, before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. In this case, Mrs (note, it is Mrs and not Justice) Nirmala Yadav versus Central Bureau of Investigation , the High Court had one of its former judges as a petitioner before it and who was an accused in a criminal case in the CBI Court.
In a landmark judgement, the High Court dismissed her petition and observed, "Merely because the petitioner has enjoyed one of the highest constitutional offices, she cannot claim any special right or privilege as an accused than prescribed under law. Rule of law has to prevail and must prevail equally and uniformly, irrespective of the status of an individual. Taking a panoptic view of all the factual and legal issues, I find no valid ground for judicial intervention in exercise of inherent jurisdiction vested with this Court ".
Now, the former High Court Judge has to face trial before the CBI Court as Accused No.1.