The Delhi High Court on Monday advised the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) to consider changing the investigating officer in a corruption case involving a court staffer, following allegations of bias and a plea seeking transfer of the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, while hearing an anticipatory bail plea and a petition for investigation transfer, stressed the need for transparency in the ongoing probe. “We advise you to think about it. It must not only be transparent but seen to be transparent. We are not testing him. We are testing you on your credibility. If there is even an apprehension of bias, remove that apprehension,” Justice Gedela remarked to the ACB counsel.
The case pertains to a 38-year-old ahlmad (judicial clerk) who was posted in the court of a special judge at Rouse Avenue District Court from September 14, 2023, to March 21, 2025. The ACB registered an FIR against him on May 16, 2025, based on allegations that he had demanded a bribe to facilitate the grant of bail.

The petitioner, represented by senior counsel, argued that the ongoing investigation by the current officer was exacerbating his difficulties, noting that he had previously lodged complaints against the officer. He further claimed the FIR was a retaliatory action by the ACB aimed at a special judge who had issued a notice to its Joint Commissioner regarding a contempt reference for allegedly threatening court staff.
During the hearing, the court took serious note of the allegations and the implication of a court employee. “We are not going to brook corruption. We are not going to brook our staff. If we find that the staff was doing something, we will let off things. This is an institution,” Justice Gedela observed, noting that the ACB’s status report prima facie implicated the staffer.
The ACB counsel submitted that further material would be brought on record through an additional status report. The high court was also informed that the court’s administrative committee had earlier found “nothing” against the special judge concerned, and had declined ACB’s request dated February 14 to initiate a probe due to lack of sufficient material. However, the ACB was permitted to continue its investigation and revisit the matter should any credible evidence emerge.
Meanwhile, the staffer’s anticipatory bail plea had already been dismissed by a sessions court on May 22, after the public prosecutor pressed for custodial interrogation to unearth the alleged conspiracy.
The court has not yet ruled on the request to transfer the investigation to the CBI, but indicated that credibility and institutional integrity would guide its assessment.