As Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai prepares to retire, a controversy has emerged regarding the alleged interference by a retired High Court Chief Justice in the proceedings of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The Supreme Court has taken a serious view of the matter, with indications that CJI Gavai initiated deliberations to prevent such attempts in the future. However, the timing of events suggests that the retired High Court Chief Justice may have escaped a formal probe due to CJI Gavai's impending retirement on November 24, 2025.

The issue surfaced when a judicial member of the NCLAT's Chennai bench, Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, disclosed in open court on August 13 that he had been approached by "one of the most revered members of the higher judiciary" to secure a favorable order in a case. Justice Sharma, a retired Uttarakhand High Court judge, revealed that he received a WhatsApp message from the unnamed judge, allegedly seeking to influence the outcome of an insolvency petition filed by M/S A.S. Met Corp Private Limited against KLSR Infratech Ltd. Justice Sharma did not disclose the name of the judge who contacted him but recused himself from hearing the case.

The Supreme Court intervened, transferring the case from the NCLAT's Chennai bench to the principal bench in Delhi. A bench comprising CJI-designate Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi acknowledged the gravity of the situation and directed that CJI Gavai examine the allegations at the administrative level. The court refrained from ordering a First Information Report (FIR) or an in-house inquiry, emphasizing that the matter should be addressed by the CJI. Justice Kant stated that action must be initiated at the highest level of the judiciary against anyone attempting to interfere with the administration of justice.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing M/S A.S. Met Corp Pvt Ltd, urged the Supreme Court to direct the filing of an FIR and for a retired Supreme Court judge to monitor the criminal investigation. Bhushan claimed that his information suggested the message to the NCLAT member came from a High Court Chief Justice.

The Supreme Court acknowledged the "vital public importance" of the matter, stating that the "law must take its course". The bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi noted that the creditor's petition would be treated as a representation containing material and vital information for the CJI's consideration.

While the Supreme Court took a strong stance on the alleged interference, the lack of a formal inquiry or FIR raises questions about accountability. With CJI Gavai's retirement imminent, it remains unclear whether further action will be taken to investigate the matter and identify the retired High Court Chief Justice involved. The incident has sparked concerns about the integrity of the judicial process and the potential for external influence on tribunals like the NCLAT.