Legal – Delhi High Court Revives Action in Cruise Case
Legal – The Delhi High Court has cleared the way for disciplinary proceedings to continue against Indian Revenue Service officer Sameer Wankhede in connection with the high-profile Cordelia cruise drugs case of 2021. The decision reverses an earlier ruling by the Central Administrative Tribunal that had set aside the action initiated against him.
High Court Sets Aside Tribunal’s Order
A division bench comprising Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan allowed the Centre’s petition challenging the tribunal’s January 19 order. The Central Administrative Tribunal had previously quashed the disciplinary proceedings, siding with Wankhede’s argument that the action taken against him was flawed.
With the High Court’s latest ruling, the matter will proceed in accordance with service rules, allowing authorities to examine the allegations through departmental inquiry.
Background of the Cruise Drugs Investigation
Wankhede, a 2008-batch IRS officer, was serving with the Narcotics Control Bureau in Mumbai when the agency conducted a raid on a Goa-bound cruise ship in October 2021. The vessel was intercepted off the Mumbai coast following intelligence inputs about a suspected drug party onboard.
The Narcotics Control Bureau reported recovering small quantities of cocaine, mephedrone, charas, and MDMA during the operation. Several individuals were detained and later arrested under provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
Among those taken into custody was Aryan Khan, son of Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan. He was arrested on charges that included alleged possession, attempted consumption, and conspiracy under the NDPS law.
Allegations Against Wankhede
In the months that followed, allegations surfaced against Wankhede, including claims that he had demanded money in exchange for not implicating certain individuals in the case. These accusations led to a preliminary inquiry conducted by a Special Enquiry Team.
Based on the findings of that inquiry, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs initiated disciplinary proceedings against him. A charge memorandum was issued in August 2025, outlining the accusations and calling for a formal response.
Wankhede challenged the move before the tribunal, arguing that the preliminary inquiry report could not legally serve as the foundation for departmental action. He also contended that due process had not been followed and described the charges as arbitrary and motivated.
Tribunal’s Observations and Government’s Appeal
While quashing the proceedings earlier this year, the Central Administrative Tribunal observed that the government’s actions appeared to be influenced by bias. The tribunal also remarked that attributing motive without sufficient grounds could not justify formal charges.
The Union government and the CBIC contested this reasoning before the High Court. They maintained that the tribunal had overstepped its jurisdiction by intervening at the stage when only a charge sheet had been issued. According to the Centre, disciplinary authorities must be allowed to complete their inquiry before judicial scrutiny at a later stage.
In January, the High Court had declined to interfere with an interim stay granted by the tribunal but had urged it to decide the matter expeditiously. With the tribunal’s final order now overturned, the disciplinary process will resume.
Developments in Aryan Khan’s Case
Separately, the Narcotics Control Bureau later filed a closure report giving Aryan Khan a clean chit. The agency stated that its investigation did not find evidence linking him to a larger drug conspiracy. It also noted that no contraband had been recovered from him and that no medical examination had been conducted to establish consumption.
The High Court’s present order is confined to the service-related proceedings against Wankhede and does not revisit the merits of the original criminal case.
The outcome of the departmental inquiry will determine whether any administrative penalties are warranted. For now, the court’s ruling ensures that the inquiry process will continue under established legal procedures.