An unexpected twist unfolded in the Madras High Court on Thursday when a criminal revision petition took a dramatic turn. Justice M. Nirmal Kumar stepped aside from hearing a CBI-related matter after a letter surfaced alleging that a senior advocate had collected ₹50 lakh in the judge’s name to influence the case outcome.
The development came during the hearing of connected petitions in a CBI corruption case.
Read also:- Bombay HC Disposes Unmarried Woman’s Abortion Plea, Cites Supreme Court Ruling on MTP Rights
Background of the Case
The matter concerns N. Ganesh Agarwal, who filed a criminal revision petition challenging an order passed by the XII Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases in Chennai. Alongside, a criminal original petition was filed by Naresh Prasad Agarwal, seeking to quash the charge sheet in C.C. No. 3 of 2014, insofar as he was concerned .
Both petitions were listed for further hearing on February 5, 2026.
Senior Advocate M. Murali Kumaran appeared for the petitioners, while Special Public Prosecutor K. Srinivasan represented the CBI.
The Shocking Communication
Before arguments could proceed, the court registry informed the bench that it had received a communication from the Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, New Delhi .
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Refuses to Quash Forgery Case Linked to 1963 Land Deed, Orders Police Prob
Attached to the Ministry’s letter was a representation submitted by the All India Lawyers’ Association for Justice (AILAJ), Chennai.
The representation made a serious claim. It alleged that a senior advocate had collected ₹50 lakh from a client, stating that the money was to be given to the judge in connection with the very case being heard. The letter further claimed that despite the alleged payment, no favourable order had been passed so far .
The communication had been forwarded to the High Court for necessary action.
The courtroom atmosphere shifted palpably as the contents were read out.
Courtroom Reactions
The bench immediately shared the communication with both sides.
Senior Advocate Murali Kumaran strongly denied the allegations. He submitted that the claims made in the representation were “totally false” and stated that he was ready to cooperate with any enquiry into the matter .
On the other hand, the Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI expressed concern over the nature of the allegations. He argued that such representations should not be entertained casually, as they strike at the dignity of the court. He urged that stern action be taken to identify the person responsible and to proceed appropriately .
Read also:- Bombay High Court Flags Flawed Tree-Felling Notices, Closes Pune Coconut Trees Case
Court’s Observation
Justice Nirmal Kumar did not brush aside the issue.
In his order, the judge noted that “in view of the specific allegations contained in the representation,” it would be appropriate to refer the matter to the Vigilance Cell of the Madras High Court .
The bench made it clear that the seriousness of the accusations required an independent examination.
The court further observed that it was not inclined to continue hearing the case in light of the allegations. The matter, the judge said, should be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for assignment to an appropriate bench.
The order also indicated that directions may be issued to the Vigilance Cell to conduct an enquiry and take suitable action.
Read also:- Kerala High Court Orders Probe Into ₹14 Lakh Sabarimala Staff Transfers During Mandala
The Decision
In a firm and measured move, Justice M. Nirmal Kumar recused himself from hearing the criminal revision and the connected petition.
The case will now be placed before the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court for further orders regarding its listing before another bench. Simultaneously, the issue arising from the representation has been directed to be examined by the High Court’s Vigilance Cell .
With that, the proceedings concluded for the day.
Case Title: N. Ganesh Agarwal vs Inspector of Police, ACB CBI & connected matter
Case No.: CRL RC No. 1191 of 2015 & Crl.O.P. No. 21243 of 2014
Decision Date: 05 February 2026
