Delhi HC Fines Centre ₹20,000 for Hiding Facts in Wankhede Case

Delhi High Court Fines Centre ₹20,000 for Concealing Facts in Sameer Wankhede Promotion Case

Court slams Union Government for hiding details in review plea

Bench upholds earlier order on IRS officer’s promotion, warns against misleading judiciary

By Our Legal Reporter

New Delhi: October 17, 2025: The Delhi High Court has imposed a fine of ₹20,000 on the Central Government for concealing facts in a review petition related to the promotion of Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer Sameer Wankhede.

Wankhede, a 2008-batch IRS officer, is widely known for his tenure as the former Zonal Director of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB). He came into the national spotlight during the Aryan Khan drug case in 2021.

The dispute before the court was about his promotion to the post of Joint Commissioner of Customs and Indirect Taxes. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) had earlier directed the government to consider Wankhede’s promotion if he was found eligible.

The Centre challenged this order before the Delhi High Court, but the court upheld the CAT’s decision. Later, the government filed a review petition, which led to the present controversy.

Court’s Strong Observations

A division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Madhu Jain dismissed the Centre’s review petition and imposed costs of ₹20,000.

The judges said the government had “concealed material facts” while filing the review plea. The bench observed that such conduct was unacceptable, especially in service matters where transparency is expected.

The court stated that the Union Government must disclose all facts truthfully before filing petitions. It warned that attempts to mislead the judiciary would not be tolerated.

The bench also noted that the review petition was an attempt to re-argue the case rather than point out any legal error in the earlier judgment.

Why the Court Imposed Costs

The imposition of costs is significant. Courts usually impose monetary penalties when they find that a party has acted in bad faith, wasted judicial time, or attempted to mislead the court.

In this case, the Delhi High Court said the Centre’s conduct deserved strong disapproval. By concealing facts, the government not only weakened its own case but also undermined the integrity of judicial proceedings.

The ₹20,000 cost was directed to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, which provides legal aid to underprivileged litigants.

Sameer Wankhede’s Career and Controversies

Sameer Wankhede has had a high-profile career in the IRS. Apart from his NCB role, he has served in customs and excise departments.

He became a household name during the Aryan Khan drug case, where Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan’s son was arrested. The case attracted massive media attention, and Wankhede faced both praise and criticism for his handling of it.

Later, Wankhede himself faced inquiries, including allegations of misconduct and corruption. However, he has consistently denied wrongdoing and has defended his record as a law enforcement officer.

The promotion case is part of his ongoing legal battles with the government.

Legal Experts React

Legal experts say the Delhi High Court’s order sends a clear message to government departments: they must act with full transparency when approaching courts.

Advocates point out that review petitions are meant only to correct errors apparent on the face of the record. They are not meant to be used as a second round of litigation.

By concealing facts, the Centre weakened its credibility before the court. Experts believe this ruling will discourage similar practices in future service-related disputes.

Implications for the Government

The order is a setback for the Union Government, which has been trying to resist Wankhede’s promotion. The High Court’s decision means that the CAT’s direction stands, and Wankhede’s case for promotion must be considered on merit.

It also highlights the judiciary’s insistence on fair play and honesty in government litigation. Courts have often criticized the government for filing unnecessary appeals and wasting judicial time. This ruling adds to that criticism.

Broader Significance

The case is not just about one officer’s promotion. It reflects larger issues in India’s legal and administrative system:

Transparency in government litigation
Proper use of review petitions
Judicial intolerance of concealment and misrepresentation
Accountability of government lawyers and officers

The Delhi High Court’s decision reinforces the principle that justice cannot be compromised by half-truths or hidden facts.

What Happens Next

The Centre now has limited options. It could approach the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court’s order. However, given the strong observations made by the High Court, success may be difficult.

For Wankhede, the ruling strengthens his case for promotion. If found eligible, he may soon be promoted to the post of Joint Commissioner of Customs and Indirect Taxes.

The case will also likely influence how government departments handle litigation in the future.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision to fine the Centre ₹20,000 for concealing facts in the Sameer Wankhede promotion case is a landmark moment. It shows that the judiciary will not tolerate attempts to mislead it, even by the government.

The ruling is a reminder that truthfulness and transparency are the cornerstones of justice. For Wankhede, it is a personal victory. For the government, it is a lesson in accountability. And for the public, it is reassurance that the courts remain a strong guardian of fairness.