SC transfers trial of graft case against retd judge to Delhi

The Supreme Court transferred the entire disproportionate-assets trial against former Allahabad high court judge Shri Narayan Shukla. It moved from the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI, West Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, to the Court of Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, Rouse Avenue Court, Central District, New Delhi. The transfer changes the court conducting the trial, not the allegations themselves.

The case is recorded as Sessions Case No. 737/2026, titled “CBI v. Narayan Shukla & Anr.” It concerns CBI allegations that Shukla acquired assets worth more than ₹2.5 crore between 2014 and 2019. The CBI had already filed a charge sheet in this case.

The Supreme Court considered Delhi appropriate because the related bribery case is already pending there. It also directed the accused and named family members to cooperate, while asking the CBI to identify witnesses who could testify by video conference.

A disproportionate-assets case examines whether a public servant acquired property, money, or other assets far beyond what lawful income could reasonably explain. The focus is not simply ownership. Investigators compare known income, legitimate spending, and assets accumulated during a stated period. A large unexplained gap can become evidence of illicit enrichment.

In Shukla’s case, the CBI alleges that he acquired disproportionate assets worth over ₹2.5 crore between 2014 and 2019. The case was registered in 2023 during the investigation into the separate alleged bribery matter. The CBI later filed a charge sheet, and the trial was initially before a Lucknow CBI court.

Unexplained wealth can amount to a corruption offence when the evidence shows that the assets were acquired through unlawful means or cannot be satisfactorily accounted for under the applicable law. The allegation is not a conviction. The transferred trial must test the CBI’s evidence and the defence’s explanation.

The alleged wealth totals more than ₹2.5 crore. The figure appears in the CBI’s disproportionate-assets case against former Allahabad high court judge Shri Narayan Shukla. “More than” means the article gives a minimum scale, rather than an exact final amount.

The alleged accumulation took place between 2014 and 2019. During that period, the CBI says Shukla acquired assets that were disproportionate to his known lawful income. The agency registered the separate criminal case in 2023, while investigating the earlier alleged bribery case involving a medical college.

The case was initially tried before a Lucknow CBI court. Shukla argued that it should be heard alongside the related Delhi bribery case. The Supreme Court accepted that connection and transferred the proceedings to the Rouse Avenue CBI court. The amount remains an allegation to be tested at trial.

The Supreme Court treated the Lucknow assets trial as connected because it emerged from the earlier corruption investigation involving Shukla. The former judge’s lawyer argued that the disproportionate-assets proceedings arose from the same FIR and charge sheet as the alleged bribery case already pending in Delhi. Hearing related matters together can reduce duplication and make the evidence easier to manage.

The earlier case concerns an alleged bribe linked to a favourable order for Prasad Institute of Medical Sciences. The CBI filed its charge sheet in December 2021 before a Special Judge at Rouse Avenue Courts. During that investigation, the agency registered the assets case in 2023 and later filed another charge sheet.

The CBI, represented by Additional Solicitor General Davinder Pal Singh, did not oppose the request. He said there was no difficulty if both trials were conducted by the competent Delhi court. The Supreme Court consequently transferred the Lucknow proceedings.

The alleged link is the favourable judicial order itself. Prasad Institute of Medical Sciences had been barred by the Medical Council of India in 2017 because of substandard facilities. The CBI alleges that Shukla helped the college obtain relief by passing an order allowing it to admit students.

According to the CBI, the college challenged the MCI decision in the Supreme Court, withdrew that petition, and filed a fresh plea in the high court. Investigators allege that Shukla met the college owner at his residence with retired judge IM Quddusi. A bench comprising Shukla then passed the favourable order on August 25, 2017.

The CBI alleges a conspiracy involving Shukla, Quddusi, owners Bhagwan Prasad Yadav and Palash Yadav, intermediary Bhawana Pandey, and Sudhir Giri. The alleged order became the basis of the bribery case, which was charged in December 2021 and remains pending in Delhi.

The transfer means the disproportionate-assets case will now be heard at the Rouse Avenue CBI court in New Delhi, where the related bribery case is pending. The accused and family members named in the assets case must fully cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The order therefore creates a clearer, single-city trial arrangement.

For the CBI, the move allows both connected prosecutions to be handled by a competent Delhi court. For witnesses, the Supreme Court asked the agency to identify official witnesses who can be examined through video conferencing. That mechanism can reduce travel and scheduling problems, especially for government witnesses.

The court expressly sought an expedited trial, but the transfer does not decide guilt or innocence. The prosecution must still present its evidence, and the accused can respond in court. The practical effect is administrative and procedural: fewer separate proceedings, stronger coordination, and a stated push to avoid delay.

The article describes several stages for allegations against a high court judge. When Shukla was still sitting, the CBI approached then-CJI Dipak Misra for an inquiry. An in-house committee formed by the CJI concluded that Shukla was guilty of judicial malpractice. The finding created grounds for removal under the Constitution, and his judicial and administrative work was withdrawn.

The criminal investigation followed a separate route. In July 2019, the CBI approached then-CJI Ranjan Gogoi for permission to prosecute Shukla. Gogoi granted permission and recommended to the Centre that Shukla be removed. The CBI then pursued the alleged bribery case and filed its charge sheet in December 2021. It later registered the assets case in 2023.

Shukla retired in July 2020 while the removal matter remained pending. The article shows the Chief Justice’s institutional role, the CBI’s investigative and prosecuting role, and constitutional removal procedures as distinct processes. The criminal trials continue after retirement, with the assets case now transferred to Delhi.