Mumbai Contempt Petition Sparks Concerns Over Judicial Integrity And Anti-Corruption Oversight

Allegations against Thane Sessions Judge and ACB Mumbai point to systemic failures in upholding Supreme Court rulings

In a case that could have far-reaching implications for the Indian judiciary and anti-corruption agencies, social activist Brijesh Sharma has filed a contempt petition before the Mumbai Sessions Court. The petition levels explosive charges of judicial impropriety and willful disobedience of binding Supreme Court directives against Principal District and Sessions Judge of Thane, Shri Shrinivas Brijmohan Agrawal, as well as against senior officials of the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Mumbai.

Sharma’s plea stems from his earlier criminal revision application under Section 397 of the CrPC, which followed the rejection by a Magistrate of his bid to secure police investigation orders under Section 156(3). The Sessions Court, under Judge Agrawal, dismissed this revision on 28 February 2024. According to Sharma, this decision was not only legally untenable but also procedurally flawed, as it was delivered without granting a fair hearing. He cites violation of principles laid down in Taj Mohammad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (SLP (Crl.) No. 5298/2023) by the Supreme Court of India.

The activist alleges that Judge Agrawal’s decision reflected not a mere judicial error but was tainted by corrupt intent, influenced by external considerations, and executed in exchange for illegal gratification — conduct which, if proven, would constitute an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and breach of the judicial oath.

The petition further accuses the ACB Mumbai of deliberately stalling action by failing to register a Zero FIR on the allegations against the judge. This, Sharma contends, defies the Supreme Court’s timeline set in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh, where the apex court mandated that preliminary inquiries should not exceed 15 days. Instead, Sharma asserts, the ACB’s delay of over 30 days appears designed to shield influential figures from legal scrutiny.

Observers note that this case is likely to attract significant public and legal attention as it raises troubling questions about the enforceability of Supreme Court judgments, the accountability of judicial officers, and the effectiveness of anti-corruption mechanisms in the country. The outcome may well test the robustness of India’s legal and institutional frameworks in addressing corruption and ensuring judicial accountability.