New CBI Case Against Ex-HC Judge: What Is It About? What Was The Last Case?

The CBI has alleged that Justice Shukla amassed assets worth over Rs 2.54 crore between 2014-2019.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), on Wednesday, 22 February, registered a fresh case against former Allahabad High Court judge SN Shukla, for allegedly acquiring disproportionate assets during his tenure.

This is the second case of this nature filed by the CBI against the retired judge.

So, what is this case all about? And what happened previously?

What is This New Case All About?

The central investigating agency has alleged that Justice Shukla amassed assets worth over Rs 2.54 crore between 2014-2019, attributed it to family members and was unable to offer a satisfactory explanation for the source of income.

The case against him, according to news agency PTI, is of having "intentionally enriched himself illicitly and acquired assets by corrupt and illegal means in the name of Suchita Tiwari with whom he is residing."

What this, essentially means is that a public servant is believed to have committed criminal misconduct if he is in possession of pecuniary resources or property, which are disproportionate to his known source of income.

How the CBI concluded that the sum of Rs 2.54 crore attributed to Justice Shukla was disproportionate to known sources of income, however, at this stage remains unclear.

Bribe For Favourable Verdict: The First Case Against Him

Previously, in 2019, Justice Shukla was booked by the CBI for reportedly giving judgments in favour of Prasad Education Trust-run Glocal Medical College, in exchange for bribes.

Former Orissa High Court judge IM Quddusi, four others from the Prasad Education Trust, and another alleged middleman (Sudhir Giri) were also booked, besides Justice Shukla. 

According to a Hindustan Times report, the agency had claimed that raids were conducted by the investigating agency across the residences of Shukla and Quddusi and five other places, and several incriminating documents were found.

“...it is revealed that Justice Shri Narayan Shukla...abused his official position and entered into criminal conspiracy...and obtained illegal gratification in order to obtain pecuniary advantage for BP Yadav and Palash Yadav of Prasad Education trust...”

Probe agency in its FIR

This came four months after then Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi had given the green light to  the CBI to file a case against the serving high court judge.

According to a 1991 Supreme Court ruling (K. Veeraswami versus Union of India) investigating agencies must show evidence to the chief justice before filing a case against a sitting judge of the top court or High Courts. This was reportedly the first time the chief justice had approved such a request.

Medical Bribery Cases: More Details?

The case involving the Prasad Education Trust-run Global Medical College trust was part of the medical bribery cases.

These pertained to allegations that several private medical colleges, who had been banned by the Medical Council of India from admitting new students from 2017-18 onwards, were attempting to influence judges of the relevant High Courts and the Supreme Court, to give them favourable orders.

Prasad Education Trust, however, was caught in the eye of the storm, for allegedly engaging middlemen (including a retired Orissa High Court judge) to bribe judges of the Allahabad High Court and Supreme Court in exchange for favourable orders. 

Justice Shukla headed the bench that heard their case in the High Court, while then  CJI Dipak Misra headed the bench hearing it in the Supreme Court, which led to another fiasco altogether, reportedly involving a draft impeachment note against CJI Mishra as well.

But Was Justice Shukla's Impeachment Ever Sought?

The allegations against Justice Shukla regarding the bribery did not initially emanate from the CBI. 

The case in the Supreme Court: In January 2018, a committee comprising Justice Indira Banerjee, (then Chief Justice of the Madras High Court and Supreme Court judge), Justice SK Agnihotri (then Chief Justice of Sikkim high court) and Justice PK Jaiswal (judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court) submitted a report on Justice Shukla which concluded: 

“The aberrations complained of are serious enough to call for initiation of proceedings for his removal (as a judge)”.

Later in the same month, then CJI Dipak Misra recommended Justice Shukla’s impeachment. Misra, thus, kickstarted the impeachment process, by writing a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Justice Shukla's role: The top court’s in-house proceedings,  although part of the bribery case probe, were connected to the case of another college – the GCRG Medical Institute.

Uttar Pradesh advocate general Raghvendra Singh and one Dr Abhai Krishna, in September 2017, submitted complaints to the then-chief justice of the court, Justice D.B. Bhosale.

On 4 September 2017, Justice Narayan Shukla had reportedly made hand-written corrections to the order passed by his own bench a few days prior to that, allowing the college to admit students for the academic year 2017-18.

This went against instructions from the top court, which had ordered that no admissions should be allowed for this college.

Justice Shukla's response: Following the in-house committee’s report, the CJI then wrote to Justice Shukla to either resign or take voluntary retirement. 

But, Justice Shukla reportedly refused both options and CJI Misra, thereafter withdrew all judicial work from him and also wrote to the President's Secretariat, requesting them to initiate removal (impeachment) proceedings against the Judge, the same year.

What Is The process of Impeachment?

A judge may be removed from office through an impeachment motion adopted by the Parliament on grounds of ‘proven misbehaviour or incapacity’. The motion can originate in either House of Parliament.

To initiate proceedings:

• at least 100 members of Lok Sabha may give a signed notice to the Speaker, or

• at least 50 members of Rajya Sabha may give a signed notice to the Chairman

• The Speaker or Chairman (depending on which house it is) may consult individuals and examine relevant material related to the notice

• Based on this, they may decide to either admit the motion or refuse to admit it.

Once the motion is admitted:

> the Speaker or Chairman (who receives it) constitutes a three-member committee (including a Supreme Court judge; a Chief Justice of a High Court and a distinguished jurist) to investigate the complaint.

> After concluding its investigation, the Committee submits its report to the Speaker or Chairman, who will then lay the report before the relevant House of Parliament.

> If the report records a finding of misbehaviour or incapacity, the motion for removal will be taken up for consideration and debated

The motion for removal is required to be adopted by each House of Parliament by: (i) a majority of the total membership of that House; and (ii) a majority of at least two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting.

If the motion is adopted by this majority, the motion will be sent to the other House for adoption.

Once the motion is adopted in both Houses, it is sent to the President, who issues an order for the removal of the judge.

So What Happened?

Eighteen months after then CJI Mishra wrote to the president asking for Justice Shukla to be impeached, his successor CJI Ranjan Gogoi in June 2019 wrote to Prime minister Narendra Modi, once again, reiterating the request for initiating an impeachment motion.

But before the executive acted on this, he retired in July 2020.

Advocate on Record (AOR) MR Shamshad, while expressing displeasure over the executive’s inaction, wrote for The Wire:

“Just as a delay in the appointment of judges has an adverse effect on judicial independence and the rule of law, the government’s inaction in the removal of tainted judges have exactly the same effect."

(With inputs from The Hindustan Times, PTI, Times of India)