&imwidth=600&imheight=450&format=webp&quality=medium)
The allegations of misconduct against Justice Sanjeev Kumar Singh involve questionable financial dealings and efforts to influence a lawyer in an ongoing case. Singh has also been accused of pressuring a sexual assault survivor to "compromise' the matter.
A judge of the Saket Court in Delhi has been suspended after allegations of forcing a sexual assault victim to settle. The judge, identified as Justice Sanjeev Kumar Singh, handling cases in the Commercial Court at Saket, has been prohibited from leaving Delhi without any permission. He has been ordered to remain at headquarters and will get only a subsistence allowance during this period.
After the order passed on August 29, Registrar General Arun Bhardwaj said that while the probe is on, Kumar will not be allowed to leave Delhi without prior permission. “Whereas a disciplinary proceeding against Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, an officer of Delhi Higher Judicial Service is contemplated. Now, therefore, this Court in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 read with Rule 27 of Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970, hereby places the said Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh under suspension with immediate effect,” the Court order read, the Bar and Bench reported.
It added, “It is further ordered that during the period that this order shall remain in force, the headquarters of Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh shall be the office of Principal District & Sessions Judge, South, Saket, New Delhi, and the said Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh shall not leave Delhi without obtaining the prior permission of the competent authority.”
According to a report by India Today, the decision against him was taken by a full court meeting of the Delhi High Court on August 29. Sources indicated that the allegations of misconduct involve questionable financial dealings and efforts to influence a lawyer in an ongoing case. Singh has also been accused of pressuring a sexual assault survivor to "compromise' the matter.
This issue came to light during the hearing of an appeal before the Delhi High Court, which then referred it to the Vigilance Registrar for investigation. After the inquiry report, the full court of the Delhi High Court decided to take action against the judicial officer.