A ₹15 Lakh Mystery, Judicial Accountability, and the Unanswered Questions
SEVENTEEN YEARS years after cash worth ₹15 lakh was delivered to the residence of a high court judge in Chandigarh, a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court has acquitted a former high court judge due to a lack of evidence.
While it is established that ₹15 lakh in cash was delivered—and is perhaps still lying in a police malkhana—several questions remain unanswered: What was the cash sent for, and for whom?
For those who were too young at the time or do not recall the case, which dates back to August 13, 2008, here are some details. According to the FIR lodged with the police by Justice Nirmaljit Kaur of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, a man left a bag at her official residence. When the bag was opened, ₹15 lakh in cash tumbled out.
Shocked at the sight of the cash, which she evidently was not expecting, she suspected a conspiracy—perhaps an effort to trap her. She immediately informed the then Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, who advised her to file an FIR. The local police took custody of the cash and registered a case.
The police traced the person who had delivered the cash. He claimed he was just a courier and that the money had been given to him by a Delhi-based hotelier for delivery.
Courts often state that
“sunlight is the best disinfectant,” implying that transparency is essential in all matters.
Subsequent investigations revealed that the cash was not meant for Justice Nirmaljit Kaur but for Justice Nirmal Yadav, a judge with a similar-sounding name at the same high court. However, Justice Yadav vehemently denied that the cash was intended for her.
The case was transferred to the CBI, which reported that the money was delivered by a clerk working for former Haryana Additional Advocate General Sanjeev Bansal, who had allegedly called Justice Kaur and said that the cash was mistakenly delivered to her residence.
A year later, the CBI filed a closure report, but the CBI court ordered further investigation. After another round of inquiries and the filing of a chargesheet, a special CBI court ordered charges to be framed against the accused in January 2014, following the Supreme Court’s dismissal of Justice Yadav’s plea to stay the trial court proceedings.
Now, the CBI court has acquitted Justice Nirmal Yadav and the other accused due to a lack of evidence and contradictions in witness statements. A detailed judgment is yet to be released.
This verdict follows the now-infamous case involving the recovery of partially burnt cash worth crores of rupees from the residence of a sitting high court judge, Justice Yashwant Verma. While this case is still fresh in public memory, both cases highlight concerns over judicial accountability and corruption—even though, in both instances, no one has been convicted.
Unlike other public servants, judges are not required to disclose information about their assets or net worth. In most cases, they have chosen not to do so. Back in 1997, during a meeting chaired by then Chief Justice of India J.S. Verma, the Supreme Court adopted a resolution stating:
“Every judge should make a declaration of all assets in the form of real estate or investments held in their names, in the name of their spouses, or any other person dependent on them, to the Chief Justice.”
This resolution did not mandate public disclosure; instead, it required judges to disclose their assets only to the Chief Justice concerned. Later, in 2009, a full bench of the Supreme Court resolved to declare judges’ assets on the court’s website—but clarified that this was being done “purely on a voluntary basis.”
The judiciary’s credibility is sacred, as it remains the last hope for justice for citizens.
Some Supreme Court and High Court judges disclosed their assets, but the website has not been updated since 2018, meaning there are no such records for currently sitting judges.
According to a report, only 97 out of the 770 high court judges across India have publicly declared their assets and liabilities.
It must be noted that in 2023, Parliament’s Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law, and Justice recommended the introduction of legislation to ensure the mandatory disclosure of Supreme Court and High Court judges’ assets and liabilities. However, there has been no progress on this recommendation so far.
Candidates contesting elections are required to declare their assets and liabilities, and even minor mistakes or non-disclosures can lead to disqualification. Similarly, all Union ministers must submit these details, which are made available online.
Members of Parliament (MPs) must provide asset declarations to the Lok Sabha Speaker or the Rajya Sabha Chairman. While these are not made public, they can be accessed through Right to Information (RTI) applications.
Also Read: Judiciary Needs To Judge Itself
Several states have made it mandatory for senior officers to declare their assets and liabilities—although, in some cases, these declarations are submitted only to the government but remain accessible through RTI applications.
Courts often state that “sunlight is the best disinfectant,” implying that transparency is essential in all matters. However, this principle appears to be selectively applied when it comes to the judiciary—whether in the selection of judges or the disclosure of their assets.
The judiciary’s credibility is sacred, as it remains the last hope for justice for citizens. Therefore, like Caesar’s wife, it must not only remain above suspicion but also appear to be so. 
————-
Also Read:
Indian Judges should talk less
Vipin Pubby
The author, a freelance journalist, is a former Resident Editor of Indian Express, Chandigarh, and reported on the political developments in Jammu and Kashmir, North-Eastern India, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana and Punjab in his long, illustrious career.
Disclaimer : PunjabTodayNews.com and other platforms of the Punjab Today group strive to include views and opinions from across the entire spectrum, but by no means do we agree with everything we publish. Our efforts and editorial choices consistently underscore our authors’ right to the freedom of speech. However, it should be clear to all readers that individual authors are responsible for the information, ideas or opinions in their articles, and very often, these do not reflect the views of PunjabTodayNews.com or other platforms of the group. Punjab Today does not assume any responsibility or liability for the views of authors whose work appears here.
Punjab Today believes in serious, engaging, narrative journalism at a time when mainstream media houses seem to have given up on long-form writing and news television has blurred or altogether erased the lines between news and slapstick entertainment. We at Punjab Today believe that readers such as yourself appreciate cerebral journalism, and would like you to hold us against the best international industry standards. Brickbats are welcome even more than bouquets, though an occasional pat on the back is always encouraging. Good journalism can be a lifeline in these uncertain times worldwide. You can support us in myriad ways. To begin with, by spreading word about us and forwarding this reportage. Stay engaged.
— Team PT