The Delhi High Court has directed the initiation of criminal complaint proceedings against six Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) officers for allegedly placing a materially false statement before the court regarding correspondence with the administrative ministry, in connection with a proposed challenge to the discharge of an Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer in a disproportionate assets case. The ruling, delivered on 8 October 2026, marks a rare instance of a constitutional court ordering criminal proceedings against serving or former federal investigative officers for conduct inside a courtroom.

The Officers Named and the Direction

A single-judge Bench of Justice Madhu Jain passed the direction while allowing a criminal appeal filed by Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, an IRS officer, against an order of the Special Judge (PC Act), Rouse Avenue Courts, which had earlier declined to initiate proceedings under Section 340 of the CrPC against the concerned CBI officers.

The High Court directed the Special Judge to make a written complaint against Sushil Dewan, Vineet Vinayak, Amit Kumar, Raman Tyagi, Prem Kumar Gautam, and Md. Azad for alleged offences punishable under Section 191 read with Section 193 of the IPC and Section 209 IPC. The complaint has been directed to be transmitted to the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate within four weeks of receipt of the judgment.

Background: How the Case Unfolded

The origins of this dispute trace back to the CBI's prosecution of Aggarwal in a disproportionate assets case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, based on a sanction order passed on 26 November 2002. The Delhi High Court, in January 2016, held the sanction invalid, following which the Special Judge discharged Aggarwal in March 2016.

The CBI thereafter considered challenging the judgment before the Supreme Court. A legal opinion rendered by the Ministry of Law and Justice on 8 June 2016 stated that there appeared to be no reasonable ground to pursue the matter further. This opinion was communicated to the CBI through the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) on 1 July 2016.

Aggarwal subsequently sought the release of documents seized during the investigation. In its reply filed on 2 August 2016, the CBI opposed the release, stating that 'correspondence with the administrative Ministry with respect to further legal action in the matter is underway.'

The Disputed Statement and the Altered Draft

The High Court found that the CBI's reply of 2 August 2016 was materially false. On that very date, no such correspondence with the administrative ministry was actually underway — the CBI had already received the Law Ministry's opinion against pursuing the matter, and an internal proposal to seek reconsideration was forwarded to the DoPT only on 8 August 2016, six days later.

Critically, the court found that successive drafts of the CBI's reply were revealing. A second draft had expressly stated that the DoPT had turned down the CBI's proposal to file a special leave petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court — but that statement was deleted and replaced with a handwritten assertion that correspondence was underway. The High Court, prima facie, attributed this handwritten alteration to then CBI Head of Zone (HoZ) Vineet Vinayak, and found that Sushil Dewan subsequently incorporated the alteration into the final reply filed before the court.

'This concerned alteration changed the very factual position sought to be presented before the Court,' Justice Jain observed. The court further noted that the other officers — Prem Kumar Gautam, Amit Kumar, Md. Azad, and Raman Tyagi — showed different degrees of involvement in preparing, vetting, processing, and approving the reply.

Court Rejects CBI's Defence Arguments

The CBI contended that its statement was merely an incorrect assertion rather than a false one, and that the subsequent reply filed on 9 August 2016 had corrected the earlier statement. The High Court rejected both arguments.

On the 'correction' argument, the court observed that the additional reply itself recorded that the proposal was forwarded to the DoPT only on 8 August — thereby distinguishing between internal consideration and actual transmission. 'Thus, even when both replies are read together, the inconsistency between the assertion made in the reply dated 02.08.2016 and the factual position as on that very date remains unexplained,' the court said.

The court also rejected the view that no action was warranted because Aggarwal had suffered no prejudice. Citing a Supreme Court precedent, it held that expediency under Section 340 CrPC must be assessed with reference to the impact of the alleged offence on the administration of justice — not merely the injury suffered by an individual litigant. 'The CBI was entitled to seek reconsideration, obtain another opinion and pursue such remedy as was available in law. However, its right to do so did not permit an internal proposal awaiting approval to be represented as a correspondence already underway with the Ministry,' the High Court stated.

Next Steps and Implications

The High Court directed that the complaint be placed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, where an earlier court complaint against Sushil Dewan had been adjourned sine die. The concerned Magistrate was directed to proceed independently and ensure that parallel proceedings concerning the same allegations are not instituted.

The court clarified that the competent court would decide the matter independently on the material placed before it, and would not be influenced by the observations made in the judgment. The case now moves to the Magistrate's court, where formal criminal proceedings against the six CBI officers are set to commence — a development that is likely to draw scrutiny over institutional accountability within India's premier investigating agency.