Former Judge Ran LPG Agency While on Bench, Plea Reveals

A petition filed by the widow of a former manager has brought to light that a judge of the Delhi High Court, who later served as the Chief Justice of the Manipur High Court, owned and operated a liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) distribution agency during his tenure on the bench. The case raises questions about judicial ethics and potential conflicts of interest.

According to the plea, the judge continued to renew the dealership contract for the LPG agency even after being appointed to the high court. The widow claims that the judge, who was the proprietor of the agency, ignored multiple notices from Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) regarding the agency's operations.

The matter first came to light when the widow sought justice for her late husband, who had managed the agency. She alleged that her husband was wrongfully terminated and that the judge used his position to influence the proceedings. The petition, filed in a lower court, has now been brought to public attention.

Judicial ethics guidelines in India require judges to avoid any business interests that could create a conflict of interest or undermine public confidence in the judiciary. The Code of Conduct for judges, as laid down by the Supreme Court, states that judges must not engage in any business or commercial activity, except for managing their own property or investments.

The judge in question reportedly held the LPG agency from before his elevation to the bench. The renewal of the contract during his tenure, however, is what has drawn scrutiny. Legal experts point out that even if the business was inherited or pre-existing, a judge must either divest or place it in a blind trust to avoid any misuse of office.

BPCL had sent several notices to the judge, reminding him of the terms of the dealership and seeking compliance with safety and operational standards. The judge allegedly did not respond, and the agency continued to operate without addressing the concerns raised by the corporation.

The widow's legal team has argued that the judge's actions amount to misconduct and that her husband was made a scapegoat for the agency's irregularities. They have called for a thorough investigation into the matter.

The case has now reached the Delhi High Court, where a bench is expected to examine the allegations. The respondent judge has not yet commented on the allegations, but his legal representatives are expected to argue that the business was managed by a trusted manager and that the judge was not directly involved in day-to-day operations.

This incident adds to a growing list of cases where judges have faced scrutiny for their financial dealings. While the judiciary is meant to be a beacon of integrity, such cases highlight the need for stricter enforcement of ethical standards.

The outcome of this petition could have far-reaching implications for judicial accountability in India.