A special court in Mumbai delivered a significant ruling on Saturday, firmly upholding the legal safeguards protecting the judiciary. The court dismissed two separate applications that sought the registration of zero FIRs against two sitting judges in Thane, citing a lack of foundational evidence and the protections afforded under the law.
Court Dismisses Allegations Based on "Reliable Belief"
The applicant, Brijesh Sharma, had approached the special court seeking criminal action against an additional sessions judge and the principal district judge of Thane. Sharma alleged that the judges had accepted bribes ranging from Rs 1.18 lakh to Rs 1.54 lakh to pass unfavorable orders in a criminal revision application.
However, Special Judge Shayana Patil found the claims to be unsubstantiated. The court noted that the applicant's primary grievance stemmed from dissatisfaction with judicial orders, which he incorrectly characterized as "dismissals for default." Judge Patil clarified that the order in question was a reasoned rejection of the revision application.
"It is quite apparent that it is certainly not an order of dismissal for default. It is the rejection of revision application on the ground discussed therein... As such, it can be said to be prima facie a reasoned order," the judge observed.
Judge Highlights Lack of Specificity and Concrete Evidence
The court took a stern view of the nature of the allegations, which were based on what the complainant had "reliably heard, understood and reasonably believed." Judge Patil pointed out that such contentions were essentially hearsay without any specification of the source.
The ruling emphasized that when leveling serious charges against members of the judiciary, a high degree of specificity is required. The judge stated that the contents of the complaint failed to make any substantive averment on the particulars of the alleged corruption, rendering the allegations "quite vague."
"The allegations are quite vague and does not make out any prima-facie case of disclosure of information of any cognizable offence," the judge said.
Legal Hurdles: PC Act Section 17A and Judges Protection Act
The court also addressed significant legal barriers to the pleas. It referred to Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, which mandates prior approval from a competent authority before investigating a public servant for decisions taken in the discharge of official duties. Since the allegations related to judicial decisions, such approval would be mandatory even for an enquiry.
Furthermore, the judge cited the Judges Protection Act, 1985. While noting that acts of corruption are not protected under any law, the court highlighted that Section 3(1) of this act bars any court from entertaining criminal proceedings against a judge for acts done in their official capacity.
"The respondent being a judge, is protected from criminal proceedings before this court in respect of any judicial order passed by him during course of his judicial function," the order stated.
The court also dismissed the applicant's attempt to file a "zero FIR" in Mumbai to circumvent the Thane Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), whom he claimed were "connected" to the respondents. The judge found no merit in these claims of bias, noting there was nothing to believe the judges had any nexus with the Thane ACB, which is supposed to function independently.
In her concluding remarks, Special Judge Patil asserted that the basic foundational argument for sustaining a belief in the alleged corruption was not made out, leading to the dismissal of both pleas.
