The Delhi High Court passed separate suspension orders against District Judge Veena Rani, posted at the Saket court, and District Judge Vinay Singhal, posted at the Tis Hazari Courts. The order concerning Singhal was dated 10 July 2026, while the order concerning Rani was dated 15 July 2026. Both orders took effect immediately upon pronouncement.
The Court noted that Judge Veena Rani is alleged to have engaged in forum shopping, a practice whereby a litigant or a judicial officer seeks to have a matter heard before a particular forum perceived to be favourable. The Court did not elaborate on the specific instances but recorded the allegation as part of the material placed before it.
Regarding Judge Vinay Singhal, the Court recorded allegations of misconduct in the process of appointing court auctioneers. It is alleged that Singhal appointed persons who were not eligible to serve as auctioneers and subsequently allowed those individuals to receive payments that were inflated relative to the prescribed scale. The Court treated these allegations as serious enough to warrant interim action.
The High Court exercised its power under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, read together with the Delhi Higher Judicial Services Rules. These rules empower the High Court to suspend a judicial officer pending an inquiry when there is a prima facie case of misconduct that could affect the integrity of the judicial process. The Court emphasized that the suspension is not a finding of guilt but a precautionary measure to ensure that the disciplinary proceedings can be conducted without interference.
The Court further observed that the suspension is consistent with the principle that judicial officers must maintain the highest standards of conduct, and any allegation that undermines public confidence in the judiciary warrants prompt interim action.
In addition to placing the judges under suspension, the Court issued specific directions concerning their place of posting during the suspension period. Judge Veena Rani has been directed to report to the office of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, South‑East District, Saket, which will serve as her headquarters. Judge Vinay Singhal has been directed to report to the office of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, as his headquarters.
The Court also imposed a restriction on travel, directing that neither judge shall leave the National Capital Territory of Delhi without obtaining prior permission from the High Court. This restriction is intended to ensure their availability for any proceedings related to the disciplinary inquiry.
The issuance of these suspension orders underscores the High Court’s commitment to upholding accountability within the subordinate judiciary. By invoking the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, the Court has signalled that allegations of forum shopping and irregularities in administrative appointments will be examined through a formal disciplinary process.
The directions to report to designated headquarters and the prohibition on unauthorised travel are procedural safeguards aimed at preserving the integrity of the inquiry while maintaining the functional continuity of the courts concerned. The matter will now proceed to a formal disciplinary proceeding where the judges will have an opportunity to respond to the allegations, present evidence, and be heard in accordance with the applicable service rules.
The High Court has indicated that it will continue to monitor the progress of the inquiry and will pass further orders as necessary. The suspension remains in place until the disciplinary proceedings are concluded or until the Court modifies its order.