In a startling move from the bench, a Bombay High Court judge has ordered a police investigation into what he believes is a deliberate attempt to trap and tarnish him. The trigger? A flurry of unexpected phone calls to his wife about purchasing their jointly owned flat—calls that took a strange turn and raised far more questions than offers.
Justice Madhav Jamdar didn’t mince words. “It is clear that an attempt is made to frame this Court,” he stated in a sharply-worded order on April 29. The judge linked the episode to recent disciplinary action taken against advocate Vijay Kurle—raising the specter of retaliation cloaked in the guise of a real estate inquiry.
The phone calls in question came from advocate Partho Sarkar between April 22 and 24, with a prior one traced back to October 2023. What began as apparently routine interest in a listed property took on a sinister hue once the judge realized who was on the other end of the line. Sarkar is reportedly a known associate of Kurle, against whom Justice Jamdar had earlier directed the Bar Council to initiate proceedings for unprofessional conduct.
According to the judge’s account, Sarkar contacted his wife multiple times, expressing urgency to purchase the flat. When Justice Jamdar himself called Sarkar to confront the situation, he says something felt immediately off. “Within 2 to 3 minutes, I realised that the said laughter was not natural and therefore I became suspicious.”
That suspicion intensified when the judge examined his wife’s call records and WhatsApp logs, confirming Sarkar’s identity. Despite being directly told he was speaking to a sitting judge of the Bombay High Court, Sarkar reportedly made no disclosure that he, too, was a practicing advocate.
The pattern didn’t end there. A missed call from Sarkar the very next day only deepened the judge’s concern. The entire sequence, Justice Jamdar said, appeared “closely timed” with the Court’s adverse observations against Kurle and another advocate, Mathews Nedumpara.
Nedumpara, too, made headlines recently in the courtroom—accusing the judge of insulting him, refusing to sit when asked, and walking out without permission. The Court noted that his comments, which included saying he was “not the slave of the Court,” came days after the April 9 order against Kurle.
Justice Jamdar saw these back-to-back confrontations as more than just coincidence.
“What is prima facie evident is that these are not isolated incidents. The intent appears to be to browbeat and undermine the dignity of this Court,” the judge stated. He warned that such actions could amount to contempt of court.
The judge has now directed Malabar Hill police to investigate Sarkar’s calls and submit a report to the Registrar General. The case will also be moved to the Chief Justice for reassignment to another bench, to avoid any further perception of bias or conflict.
Whether these phone calls were merely curious inquiries gone wrong or part of a more calculated design remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: the judiciary is not taking it lightly.
