New Delhi – In a strong message to protect the independence of the judiciary, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant on Thursday expressed serious concern over a Rajasthan MLA’s remarks in the state Legislative Assembly. The MLA had questioned the Supreme Court’s decision to grant interim bail to Shwetambari Bhatt, wife of Bollywood filmmaker Vikram Bhatt, in an alleged multi-crore fraud case. The CJI warned that the law would take its own course if anyone tries to interfere with the court’s work. This incident has brought attention to the delicate balance between the judiciary and the legislature in India.
The case involves serious charges of cheating and criminal breach of trust. It started when Ajay Murdia, a well-known doctor and founder of Indira IVF in Udaipur, filed a complaint against Vikram Bhatt, his wife Shwetambari, and others. Murdia claimed they cheated him out of around Rs 30 crore in a deal related to making films, including a biopic on his late wife. The Rajasthan Police arrested the couple in Mumbai in December 2025 and took them to Udaipur jail. Since then, the case has been in the news, mixing Bollywood drama with legal battles.
Background of the Fraud Case
The story goes back to 2024 when Ajay Murdia approached Vikram Bhatt to make movies. Bhatt, known for horror films like Raaz and 1920, agreed to direct a biopic on Murdia’s wife who had passed away. Murdia paid a large amount, said to be Rs 30 crore or more, for the project. But things went wrong. Murdia said the films were not made as promised, and he felt cheated. He filed an FIR in Udaipur in November 2025, charging them with cheating under sections of the Indian Penal Code.
The Rajasthan Police acted fast. They went to Mumbai and arrested Vikram Bhatt and Shwetambari Bhatt on December 7, 2025. Two others, including Bhatt’s manager Mehboob Ansari and a local person Dinesh Kataria, were also caught. The couple was put in judicial custody in Udaipur Central Jail. Vikram Bhatt’s lawyers said it was just a business dispute, not a crime. They argued that Murdia was using police to recover money, which is not right.
In court, the sessions court in Udaipur first denied bail. Then, the Rajasthan High Court heard the case. On January 31, 2026, Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani of the High Court rejected the bail pleas. The judge said the probe was still on, and letting them out could affect witnesses. The public prosecutor told the court that more questioning was needed, and the accused might try to influence people if freed.
Vikram Bhatt and his wife then went to the Supreme Court. They filed a special leave petition challenging the High Court’s order. The top court took up the matter quickly because of concerns about how the case was handled.
Supreme Court’s Interim Bail Decision
On February 13, 2026, a bench led by CJI Surya Kant, with Justice Joymalya Bagchi, heard Shwetambari Bhatt’s plea for interim bail. Senior lawyers Mukul Rohatgi and Siddharth Dave argued for her. They said the case looked like a money dispute dressed as a crime. The bench agreed to give her interim bail. They ordered her release from Udaipur jail after she gave bail bonds to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
The court was not happy with how the case was filed in Rajasthan. CJI Kant said it was “very unfortunate” that the Bhatts did not ask to cancel the FIR. He asked why Rajasthan was chosen when the deal happened in Mumbai. The bench also said criminal laws should not be used for getting back money. They made Ajay Murdia a party in the case and asked the Rajasthan government to reply.
Then, on Thursday, February 19, 2026, the same bench, now with Justice Vipul Pancholi too, heard the main bail plea. They granted regular bail to both Vikram Bhatt and Shwetambari Bhatt. The court set aside the High Court’s order and said the couple should be freed right away. But during this hearing, something else came up that made the CJI angry.
The MLA’s Criticism in the Assembly
Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave told the bench about remarks made by a Rajasthan MLA in the state Assembly. The MLA had questioned how the Supreme Court could give interim bail to Shwetambari Bhatt. This happened last week, soon after the February 13 order. The MLA spoke in the Assembly, saying the court’s decision was surprising given the serious charges.
The name of the MLA has not been publicly shared in court reports, but sources say it was raised as an example of political interference. The Assembly is a place where MLAs can speak freely under some protection, but criticizing court orders directly is seen as crossing a line. In India, the Constitution keeps the judiciary separate from the legislature to ensure fair justice.
CJI’s Strong Response and Warning
The CJI did not like this at all. He took serious objection to the MLA’s words. CJI Surya Kant said, “We know how to take strong action.” He warned that just because someone speaks in the Assembly, they cannot escape consequences. “The law will take its own course if anybody tries to mess with the court,” he added.
The bench was worried about influence from the state. CJI Kant said, “Only because the complaint belongs to Rajasthan and you can influence them?” He even threatened to move the whole case to Bombay (Mumbai) if there was any “misadventure” by the state’s machinery. “We can transfer in a minute everything to Bombay. You can’t take benefit,” he said.
This shows the court’s firm stand to protect its independence. The CJI ended with a stern warning: “Nobody should be under the mistaken belief that because you can speak in Assembly therefore… The law will take its own course, if anybody tries to mess with the court.”
What This Means for Judiciary and Politics
This event reminds us of past tensions between courts and politicians. In India, the judiciary is independent, as per Article 50 of the Constitution. But sometimes, leaders criticize court decisions, leading to debates on contempt of court. Under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, scandalizing the court or interfering with justice can be punished.
Legal experts say the CJI’s words are a clear message. “The judiciary must be respected, even in legislative houses,” said a senior lawyer from Delhi, who did not want to be named. “Criticism is okay, but questioning orders in a way that lowers the court’s dignity is not.”
In Rajasthan, the government is run by the Bhajan Lal Sharma-led BJP. The case involves a local businessman, so there might be political angles. But the court made it clear that no one can pressure the judiciary.
Vikram Bhatt has been in Bollywood for years. He started as an assistant to Mahesh Bhatt and made hits like Ghulam and Kasoor. His marriage to Shwetambari Soni in 2020 was quiet. This case has put them in the spotlight for wrong reasons. Bhatt’s team says they will fight the charges and prove it’s a civil matter.
Ajay Murdia, the complainant, is a big name in healthcare. His Indira IVF has centers across India. He entered film production but claims he was duped. His lawyers say the money was for specific projects that never happened.
Statements from Concerned Parties
Vikram Bhatt’s lawyer Siddharth Dave said after the hearing, “We are happy with the bail. The court saw that this is not a criminal case but a business issue.” He brought up the MLA’s remarks to show possible bias in Rajasthan.
Ajay Murdia’s side opposed the bail. Their lawyer argued in court that the fraud was big, up to Rs 44 crore. But the bench did not agree.
A general statement from a Rajasthan government official (not directly involved) said, “The Assembly allows free speech, but we respect the judiciary.” No official comment from the MLA yet.
Supreme Court Bar Association president said in a general quote, “Judges are doing their duty. Politicians should not interfere.”
Impact on Bollywood and Legal System
This case shows how business deals in films can turn sour. Many in Bollywood say contracts need to be clear. It also highlights how states can use police in disputes, leading to arrests far from home.
The Supreme Court’s quick action gives hope to those facing similar issues. It reminds that bail is a right if not a flight risk.
In Rajasthan, the Assembly session is ongoing. This might lead to more debates on court-politician relations.
FAQs on the Case and Incident
Q1: What is the fraud case against Vikram Bhatt and his wife?
The case is about alleged cheating of Rs 30-44 crore. Ajay Murdia paid for films, including a biopic, but claims they were not made. He filed FIR in Udaipur, leading to arrests in December 2025. The couple says it’s a civil dispute, not crime. The Supreme Court agreed it looks like a money recovery attempt using criminal law.
Q2: Why did the Supreme Court grant bail?
The Rajasthan High Court denied bail on Jan 31, saying probe was on. But Supreme Court saw no need for custody. On Feb 13, interim bail to Shwetambari, and on Feb 19, regular bail to both. The bench said criminal process can’t be for debt collection. They questioned why case in Rajasthan when deal in Mumbai.
Q3: What did the Rajasthan MLA say?
The MLA questioned in the Assembly how the court gave interim bail despite serious charges. It was after Feb 13 order. The exact words are not public, but it was seen as criticizing the judiciary.
Q4: What was the CJI’s reaction?
CJI Surya Kant said it’s serious. He warned law will act if anyone messes with court. No immunity for Assembly speech if it interferes. He threatened to shift case to Mumbai if state influences.
Q5: Can MLAs criticize court orders?
Yes, but with limits. Article 211 says no discussion on judges’ conduct in Assembly, but orders can be debated carefully. If it lowers court dignity, it could be contempt. Courts decide case by case.
Q6: What happens next in the case?
The Supreme Court will hear more on Feb 19 or later. The trial in Udaipur continues. The Bhatts are free on bail but must follow conditions like not leaving country without permission.