On Friday, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) attached 24 properties owned by the accused in a Rs50 crore fraudulent withdrawal case, two months after the agency conducted searches on the premises of Railway Claims Tribunal Judge R K Mittal and his associates. This move is part of the ongoing investigation into the fraud, which allegedly involved fraudulent withdrawals.
The ED has previously taken action against judges involved in bribery or accused of ties with fraudsters who allegedly fixed benches and influenced judgments. In addition to these known cases, the agency is reportedly monitoring potential conflicts of interest among judges and investigating alleged attempts to bribe them for favorable verdicts.
In 2023, the ED arrested Sudhir Parmar, a former special court judge in Panchkula, for allegedly accepting bribes and favoring the accused in a money laundering case related to IREO and its promoter, Lalit Goyal. Goyal was arrested just a month before Parmar, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court suspended the Panchkula Special CBI Court Judge after the agencies presented evidence of Parmar’s bias toward IREO promoters.
The ED also arrested Goyal’s associates, Basant Bansal and Pankaj Bansal (promoters of M3M), in a separate case. The agency’s remand note claimed that Sudhir Parmar showed favoritism toward Roop Bansal, Basant Bansal, and Lalit Goyal in exchange for undue advantages.
Meanwhile, while investigating the Chhattisgarh PDS scam, the ED uncovered evidence of IAS officers allegedly liaising with a Chhattisgarh High Court judge to influence the trial. This matter was reported to the Supreme Court, which subsequently transferred the judge to the Patna High Court. The action was similar to the Supreme Court collegium’s proposal to transfer a Delhi High Court judge following the discovery of a large sum of cash at his residence.
In the Chhattisgarh case, the ED stated that IAS officers Anil Tuteja and Alok Shukla were in contact with the high court judge, who granted bail to Shukla. The ED suggested that the advocate general of the state acted as an intermediary, implying a quid pro quo arrangement. This raised concerns of undue influence and corruption in the judicial system.
