The Delhi High Court has held that a notice to retired former Chhattisgarh and Odisha HC judge, Ishrat Masroor Quddusi, by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), to produce documents while probing graft allegations, was not sustainable.
The HC said the probe agency cannot use such provisions of law as a “shortcut” to “compel the accused” into producing information, which may be self-incriminatory evidence.
In an order on January 12, made public on January 17, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna ruled that the notice to judge by the CBI under Section 91 of the CrPC (summons to produce documents by a probe agency) to the judge was “not legally sustainable”, “because it sought to extract information rather than secure existing documents, which is beyond the scope of Section 91…”
The ‘graft’ case
In 2019, the CBI had registered an FIR against Justice Quddusi, whose parent HC was in Allahabad, and six others, including then sitting Allahabad HC judge Justice Shri Narayan Shukla.
The CBI alleged that in 2017, a criminal conspiracy was hatched between the co-accused to obtain a favourable order from Justice Shukla for M/s. Prasad Educational Trust (PET), whose college had been debarred by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW).
The FIR alleged that the college’s promoters filed a petition in the Allahabad High Court. In an interim relief, the High Court had ordered that the “petitioner college shall not be delisted from the list of colleges notified for counselling till the next date of listing i.e. August 31, 2017”.
It had also stayed encashment of the bank guarantee by the Medical Council of India till the next date of hearing.
Story continues below this ad
On the morning of August 25, 2017, the CBI alleged that Quddusi and the college owner allegedly met Shukla at his Lucknow residence and “delivered the illegal gratification”.
The accused were booked for criminal conspiracy as well as illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
In February 2020, the CBI had issued Quddusi a notice under CrPC Section 91, seeking that he produce details of mobile numbers used by him in 2017; details of bank accounts and statements from May to October 2017; and details of drivers/servants employed during this period.
The notice was challenged before a special CBI court in Delhi by Quddusi, which had set aside the notice. The CBI subsequently moved the Delhi HC, challenging the order.
Story continues below this ad
What the HC said now
Upholding the CBI court’s order, Justice Krishna reasoned that the agency’s notice demanded information which is in the nature of incriminating evidence. “Compelling the accused to provide this information is forcing him to create evidence against himself, which is strictly prohibited… it would be contrary to the protection against self-incrimination,” the court underlined
The Delhi HC further held that “protection under Section 91 does not handicap the investigation” and the agency has ample powers under CrPC Section 165 (conduct search without warrant if reasonable grounds to believe it can’t be procured otherwise).
“Details of bank accounts can be obtained from bankers under the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act; call records can be obtained from service providers. The petitioner (CBI) cannot use Section 91 as a shortcut to compel the accused to assist in building the case against himself when the agency has the statutory power to collect this evidence from independent sources,” Justice Krishna ruled.
Sohini Ghosh is a Senior Correspondent at The Indian Express. Previously based in Ahmedabad covering Gujarat, she recently moved to the New Delhi bureau, where she primarily covers legal developments at the Delhi High Court
Professional Profile
Background: An alumna of the Asian College of Journalism (ACJ), she previously worked with ET NOW before joining The Indian Express.
Core Beats: Her reporting is currently centered on the Delhi High Court, with a focus on high-profile constitutional disputes, disputes over intellectual property, criminal and civil cases, issues of human rights and regulatory law (especially in the areas of technology and healthcare).
Earlier Specialty: In Gujarat, she was known for her rigorous coverage in the beats of crime, law and policy, and social justice issues, including the 2002 riot cases, 2008 serial bomb blast case, 2016 flogging of Dalits in Una, among others.
She has extensively covered health in the state, including being part of the team that revealed the segregation of wards at the state’s largest government hospital on lines of faith in April 2020.
With Ahmedabad being a UNESCO heritage city, she has widely covered urban development and heritage issues, including the redevelopment of the Sabarmati Ashram
Recent Notable Articles (Late 2025)
Her recent reporting from the Delhi High Court covers major political, constitutional, corporate, and public-interest legal battles:
High-Profile Case Coverage
She has extensively covered the various legal battles - including for compensation under the aegis of North East Delhi Riots Claims Commission - pertaining to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, as well as 1984 anti-Sikh riots.
She has also led coverage at the intersection of technology and governance, and its impact on the citizenry, from, and beyond courtrooms — such as the government’s stakeholder consultations for framing AI-Deepfake policy.
Signature Style
Sohini is recognized for her sustained reporting from courtrooms and beyond. She specialises in breaking down dense legal arguments to make legalese accessible for readers. Her transition from Gujarat to Delhi has seen her expand her coverage on regulatory, corporate and intellectual property law, while maintaining a strong commitment to human rights and lacuna in the criminal justice system.
X (Twitter): @thanda_ghosh ... Read More
