PRESS RELEASE
Date: 13 July 2025
Location: Panvel–Raigad, Maharashtra
Issued by: Ashim Deb, Party-in-Person, Applicant in Criminal M.A. CNR No. MHRG170012082025
Case under section 7 and 13 of Prevention Of Corruption Act 1988 ACB COURT RAIGARH
Serious Concerns Raised Over Procedural Irregularities in Corruption Complaint Against Sitting Judges
Ashim Deb, a litigant appearing Party-in-Person, has raised serious concerns over alleged procedural irregularities and lack of transparency in the handling of a corruption complaint filed against two sitting Additional District and Sessions Judges of Panvel.
The application, registered as Criminal Miscellaneous Application bearing CNR No. MHRG170012082025, was e-filed on 02.06.2025 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended), along with relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. However, despite the gravity of the allegations, the matter:
Has not been assigned to any competent special court as mandated,
Has not been listed on the daily board or cause list, and
Is being informally entertained and argued without formal judicial assignment or public proceedings.
“This informal treatment of a statutory criminal complaint—especially when the respondents are sitting judges—raises troubling questions about judicial accountability, transparency, and the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law,” said Deb.
Legal and Constitutional Questions Raised
In a formal representation addressed to the Hon’ble Principal District Judge, Raigad – Alibag, Deb has questioned:
Whether judicial immunity under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 can override the Prevention of Corruption Act when landmark judgments such as K. Veeraswami v. Union of India make it clear that no such blanket immunity exists for corruption cases.
Whether a Sessions Court can entertain proceedings “off the record” without assignment or listing, especially when such hearings were held on 30.06.2025, 05.07.2025, 08.07.2025, 09.07.2025, with the next date being 21.07.2025.
Whether the Registry can bypass established codified rules and place matters before a Sessions Judge informally, where the Respondents are judicial officers.
Violation of Open Court Principles
Citing Section 327 CrPC, the Criminal Manual (Bombay High Court), and judicial conduct guidelines, the complaint alleges that all proceedings must be public, transparent, and formally recorded, especially in sensitive matters involving public functionaries. Deb highlighted that preferential handling violates Article 14 of the Constitution and sets a dangerous precedent.
Contempt Petition Before Bombay High Court Also Filed
A separate Criminal Contempt Petition (CONP 6011/2025/Stamp) has already been filed before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the same matter, further emphasizing the seriousness and urgency of ensuring procedural propriety in related lower court proceedings.
Prayer for Immediate Corrective Action
In his communication to the Hon’ble Principal District Judge, Deb has respectfully requested:
Formal listing and assignment of his Criminal M.A. to a competent, neutral court;
On-record hearings only, with adherence to the open court mandate;
Equal and non-preferential treatment under law, without informal or backdoor proceedings.
Statement from Ashim Deb
“This is not just about one litigant’s grievance. If judicial officers are accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, they must face proceedings like any other public servant—openly, fairly, and on record. Anything less shakes the foundation of the rule of law.”
For further information or official comment, please contact:
📞 Ashim Deb – 9969105580 / 9136806248
Comments
Post a Comment