Letter alleging ₹50-lakh bribe to judge is fake, AILAJ tells Madras High Court Registrar General

AILAJ claims a letter alleging a ₹50 lakh bribe to a judge is fake, urging action from the Madras High Court.

In a twist to a complaint regarding the alleged receipt of ₹50 lakh by a designated senior advocate from his client, supposedly for bribing a judge of the Madras High Court, the All India Lawyers Associaition for Justice (AILAJ) based in Tirunelveli has written to the High Court’s Registrar General, stating the name of the association had been misused by someone.

In the letter addressed to Registrar General S. Alli, AILAJ State coordinator U. Adhiyaman said: “We are shocked to know that the name of our organisation... has been misused in a fake letter sent to honourable Justice M. Nirmal Kumar about a senior counsel of the High Court in connection with the case numbers... which we came to know through daily news papers dated February 15, 2026.”

The letter went on to read: “We humbly submit that we have never sent any such letter to the honourable Justice Mr. Nirmal Kumar or to any other authority, from our organisation, and our organisation is in no way connected with the purported complaint.” AILAJ also stated its State chapter was based in Tirunelveli and not at Thambu Chetty Street in Chennai, as had been mentioned in the fake letter head.

The association also clarified none of its members function from the Thambu Chetty Street address either. “We also humbly submit that we do not have the post of Secretary as mentioned in that fake letter. The Tamil Nadu State Chapter of AILAJ operates under State Coordinators, of whom I am one. It is submitted that the misuse of our organisation’s name is a malafide attempt to defame and malign our organisation,” Mr. Adhiyaman added.

Stating AIALJ would be lodging a separate police complaint regarding misuse of its name, the association requested the Registrar General, too, to take necessary action from her end regarding the fake letter.

Justice Nirmal Kumar had recently ordered an inquiry by the High Court’s vigilance cell regarding a letter written to him in the name of AILAJ, alleging a designated senior advocate practising in the High Court had “collected” ₹50 lakh from two litigants for being given to the judge to pass favourable orders in two connected cases, but the counsel was unable to secure any such order so far.