The Allahabad High Court has granted significant interim relief to Dr. Anil Kumar Shukla, the former Chief Medical Officer (CMO), by staying the ongoing prosecution proceedings in three separate cases related to the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) scam. The bench expressed concern over the “prolonged delay” in the trial, noting that the alleged incidents date back nearly two decades.
Justice Rajeev Singh passed the order while hearing three petitions filed by Shukla under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The cases, which allege irregularities in the procurement of medicines and equipment between 2007 and 2009, are currently pending before a Special CBI Judge (Anti-Corruption) in Ghaziabad.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) initially registered the cases in New Delhi, alleging that procurement irregularities during Shukla’s tenure resulted in substantial losses to the government exchequer. Chargesheets had already been filed in all three matters.
The petitioner, now approximately 73 years old, approached the High Court seeking relief as his discharge applications remained pending before the trial court.
Senior Advocate Nandit Srivastava, representing Dr. Shukla, argued that there was no “concrete evidence” linking the former CMO to the alleged crimes. He emphasized that the petitioner was being subjected to “unnecessary harassment” in his advanced age. Srivastava also pointed out that in one of the cases, Shukla had served as the CMO for only a single day and a half, making his involvement in large-scale procurement irregularities highly improbable.
The CBI’s special counsel, Anurag Kumar Singh, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petitions. He contended that since the discharge applications were still pending before the Ghaziabad trial court, the High Court should not intervene at this stage.
The High Court rejected the CBI’s preliminary objection, focusing instead on the procedural history and the timeline of the litigation. The bench observed that the alleged incidents occurred 17 to 19 years ago.
The court flagged several critical discrepancies in the CBI’s handling of the cases:
- Tenure Disparity: In one instance, the petitioner held the post of CMO for only 1.5 days.
- Procedural Lapses: The court noted “discrepancies between the chargesheets and cognisance orders.”
- Lack of Sanction: In one of the three cases, a supplementary chargesheet was filed without the “requisite prosecution sanction,” a mandatory legal requirement for prosecuting public servants.
“Such a prolonged delay in the trial could prejudice the defence of the accused,” the bench observed, noting that the petitioner’s age further complicated the fairness of continuing the decades-old prosecution.
The High Court stayed the prosecution proceedings in the three cases pending before the Special CBI Judge in Ghaziabad. The court has directed the CBI to file a formal reply to the petitions by the first week of May.
