When a Tis Hazari Judge was caught with a teen girl but wasn’t arrested: Understanding Supreme Court safeguards offered to judicial officers

ON AUGUST 27, 2009, a police raid in Haryana’s Samalkha brought a Delhi Magistrate into the spotlight for all the wrong reasons. Tis Hazari Magistrate Raj Kumar Agarwal, along with three other accused, was allegedly caught by the police in a compromising position with a teenage girl, believed to be 18 years old according to The Indian Express. While the other three accused were booked and detained into judicial custody, Agarwal’s case followed a complicated route. The police had to seek permission from the Delhi High Court before proceeding against him due to his active status as the magistrate in Tis Hazari court.

RTI Activist P. P. Kapoor in a video posted on social media on November 3, 2026, brought the case back into public discussion while asking a significant question, “Are judges above the law in India?” The activist further alleged that during the raid the police weren’t aware of Agarwal’s position and once they learned about it the Station House Officer (SHO) ordered his release. NewsGram wasn’t able to verify this claim through publicly available information in the case. Nonetheless, the questions of how a sitting judge is prosecuted and why they are treated differently from ordinary citizens are poignant.

See Also: Who is Manasvi Vashishta? Delhi ACP and IIT graduate suspended for leading a protest outside Police headquarters following a confrontation with lawyers 

2009 Samalkha raid involving alleged trafficking and prostitution

On the intervening night of August 26-27, 2009, residents of the Punjab Colony, Samalkha, Haryana, reported suspicious activities inside a rented accommodation to the police. Acting on the information a local police unit raided the premises in the early hours and reportedly found four people in what the official statement described as a “compromising position.”

According to a report by The Tribune the Delhi Metropolitan Magistrate was identified as Raj Kumar Agarwal, posted at Tis Hazari Courts complex. The other people detained were identified as Subhash Duhan, the one who allegedly booked the accommodation, Shamsher Singh, and a woman from West Bengal. 

The reports at the time believed that the accused were involved in human trafficking with the “call girl” to be a minor. However, a report by The Indian Express stated that the girl was 18 years old. The police confirmed the arrest in an official statement and registered a case against all four under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Immoral traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The official statement didn’t state anything about the age of the girl.

The different treatment to Delhi magistrate as compared to other accused

The handling of the Tis Hazari Magistrate R K Agarwal became one of the significant aspects of the incident. Then Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Shrikant Jadhav in a statement given to the media said that three of the four accused were produced in a local court and sent in 14-day judicial custody. On the matter of prosecuting the civil judge, the SSP said, “We are following the Supreme Court guidelines in dealing with the judge.” The police further said that they were required to follow the safeguard applicable to active judicial officers before taking formal action against him.

The then Investigating officer in the case, Satpal Mallik, was also reported to have claimed that the police had sought permission from the Delhi High Court to formally arrest the magistrate. This treatment is not something special given in this case but it was rooted in safeguard laid down by the Supreme Court to protect judicial officers from arbitrary arrest and possible police harassment.

The 1991 case that led to the Supreme Court’s guidelines on arresting judges

The safeguard laid down by the apex court dates back to a 1991 judgement in Delhi Judicial Service Association, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi v. State of Gujarat. The case began from an incident in September 1989, when a Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) in Gujarat, N. L. Patel was allegedly assaulted, handcuffed and publicly humiliated by police officers. The incident followed the magistrate filing a complaint to senior police officials against local police’s failure to carry out court summons and warrants, resulting in delays in judicial proceedings. According to Patel’s account, he was called to Nadiad police station to discuss the details of the case on September 25, 1989. He was then forced to drink alcohol and when he refused he was allegedly assaulted, handcuffed and tied with a rope. The Gujarat magistrate was later taken for a medical examination while still in handcuffs.

See Also: What is the Kesavananda Bharati Case? How a Hindu Monk’s Fight for Property Rights in Kerala Saved India’s Constitution

The police disputed Patel’s account of events, claiming that he arrived at the station in an intoxicated state and behaved violently, leading to his arrest. The Supreme Court’s inquiry found Patel’s account to be true with the photographs of the incident being set up by the police to publicly humiliate him. In its September 11, 1991 judgment, the apex court, in addition to holding police officers responsible for contempt of court, observed that the treatment of judicial officers in this manner could undermine public confidence in the judiciary.

The judgement further laid down specific safeguards for dealing with the arrest and detention of judicial officers, which are:

• The District Judge or High Court must be informed before an arrest, wherever possible. 

• If an immediate arrest becomes necessary, the District and Sessions Judge concerned and the Chief Justice of the High Court must be informed without delay.

• An arrested judicial officer cannot be taken to a police station without prior orders or directions from the District and Sessions Judge, if available.

• The judicial officer cannot be handcuffed, except in exceptional circumstances involving violent resistance or an imminent threat to life and limb. 

It was important to note that the Supreme Court did not grant judges immunity from criminal prosecution. The order reiterated that judicial officers were subject to the law like any other citizen and the safeguards were intended to prevent arbitrary arrests, intimidation and humiliation from police officials.

These were the guidelines that were followed by Samalkha police in the 2009 case as well. However, there is little knowledge about what transpired in the arrest of R. K. Agarwal, or whether it even materialized or not. The publicly available information remains sparse as any conclusive record of criminal proceedings against the Tis Hazari magistrate was not established. 

Such cases draw questions from activists like P.P. Kapoor. It is important to oversee how Supreme Court guidelines are being implemented. While the apex court specifically stated that no one is above law, Agarwal’s case is only one such example where proceedings are delayed, buried and forgotten while following the bureaucratic procedures.

_[OG/HP/RS]

Suggested Reading: