The Bombay High Court on Tuesday came down strongly on the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) for issuing repeated notices to its former zonal director Sameer Wankhede without conducting a proper preliminary inquiry, emphasizing the need to “protect the protector.”
The bench of Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata expressed dissatisfaction with the agency’s reliance on an anonymous complaint, observing that law enforcement officers should not be subjected to action without due verification of allegations.
In a sharp remark underscoring institutional responsibility, the bench stated that authorities must “protect the protector,” highlighting that officers performing their duties should not face arbitrary or unverified proceedings. The court stressed that accusations are common in criminal cases, but they must be tested through proper investigation before any coercive steps are taken.
The case revolves around an anonymous letter allegedly received in 2021 by former Maharashtra minister Nawab Malik, which accused Wankhede of irregularities in two cases he supervised—one involving a Nigerian drug peddler and another linked to UK-based actress Sapna Pabbi.
The bench questioned the NCB on multiple fronts: Why no verification was carried out before issuing notices; Whether any internal probe was conducted into the complaint; How the agency acted upon an anonymous letter without establishing its source; and Whether there was any leak of confidential departmental information?
Buy Now: E-Compilation of Supreme Court Judgements – March 2026
Wankhede, in his petition before the High Court, alleged that the inquiry was an “act of vengeance.” He claimed that he had been targeted, particularly after taking action in cases linked to Malik’s family.
He further pointed out that between November 2023 and March 2024, the NCB issued 11 notices to him following directions from the Ministry of Home Affairs to examine the complaint.
Appearing for Wankhede, senior advocate Rajiv Chavan, along with advocates Faiz Merchant and Faisal Shaikh, argued that the notices failed to mention the legal provisions under which they were issued. The inquiry was based on complaints from individuals who were themselves accused in the very cases handled by Wankhede. The process lacked transparency and legal sanctity
Chavan described the inquiry as a “sham,” questioning the credibility of complaints made by accused persons against the investigating officer.
Although the NCB informed the court that nearly 90% of the inquiry was complete, the bench questioned what steps had been taken over the past two years to verify the allegations.
“You are a public authority. An anonymous letter is received by you. What did you do in the last two years? Was there any investigation?” the court asked, directing the agency to submit a detailed progress report.
The High Court has now directed the NCB to place on record its findings and clarify its actions. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on April 28.
Read More: ITC Blocking Can’t Exceed One Year: Bombay High Court Quashes GST Bank Account Attachment
